Commentary #4

In her proposal argument Samie chose to suggest that we switch to the use of technology instead of using animal testing. Her main arguments include that the advancement of technology allow for simulations to be so real that they make animal testing insignificant. She mentions CAT scans PET scans and the technology developed to simulate human blood flow.  Her arguments definitely support their thesis. I would recommend that Samie include a refutation to the financial concerns having to do with switching to technology. I believe that this is probably one of the most dominant reasons that companies still use vivisection instead of technology. Another opposing argument that I would recommend refuting is the argument that technology cannot offer the same degree of scientific evidence that an experiment on a love body could. Samie does mention that "animals differ in anatomy,metabolism, and immunity"but doesn't   reference any other sources to support her argument. I'm sure that there   Is research available to support her argument. I 

 would also recommend adding a couple more sources. As it is the information presented seems sound but lacks the referenced evidence to support it. The only other suggestion that I would make would be use more concrete language. Animal testing is one of those subjects that people are very opinionated on and if the argument seems at all wishy washy it won't be taken seriously. With that in mind I would also recommend expanding her conclusion. As one of the most persuasive and final parts of an essay it's pivotal in driving home your point and although Samie does restate her opinions , it is not necessarily a strong enough reinstatement of all her reasonings for replacing animal testing with technology.