Analyzing Context

I will analyze context in this post.

Hoekwater, Taco "ConTeXt Unofficial Logo" 4/22/09 via Wikipedia. Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported.

1. What are the key perspectives or schools of thought on the debate that you are studying?

I am studying the perspectives that animal testing could be replaced by new technology and the opposition of that viewpoint.

2. What are the major points of contention or major disagreements among these perspectives?

The major point of contention is that the technology that may be able to replace animal testing is not more reliable as animal testing nor does it model the human anatomy as well or completely as animals.

3. What are the possible points of agreement, or the possible common ground between these perspectives?

Both sides can agree that animal testing is not completely good. No one wants to kill animals but some think it's necessary to advance medicine.

4. What are the ideological differences, if any, between the perspectives?

The ideological differences between the sides is that some think this new technology is ready or very close to ready to replace animal testing and the opposition is not convinced it provides a whole comprehension of drug effects.

5. What specific actions do their perspectives or texts ask their audience to take?

Those who push for the use of this technology call pharmaceutical companies to use it and producers of the technology to make it better and more accurate. The opposition simply states that this technology cannot be used because it is not ready to model the human body.

6. What perspectives are useful in supporting your own arguments about the issue? Why did you choose these?

Perspectives that detail what technology is available to potentially replace animal testing will be the most useful. I chose this because it is logically based, which is what last project detailed was important in an engineering viewpoint.

7. What perspectives do you think will be the greatest threat to your argument? Why so?

The greatest threat to my argument is an argument that calls attention to the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of animal testing in catching errors in drugs. This is a threat because it could potentially nullify my argument without addressing problems in it.


Reflection

I read the posts by Jayni and Brandon. I learned that both sides of my controversy have common ground and I can utilize that to reach both audiences. Jayni's controversy seems like it's easier to reach both sides than mine. I think if I tried to make an argument for animal testing, the negative reaction would be much more polarizing in my controversy.