Many innocent animals endure numb pain that can lead to death. Thousands of animals are tested for the company's products. In laboratories, products such as drugs and cosmetics are tested on animals before they are determined to be safe for use by humans. Some may say that this is the best way because it ensures safety for humans and no one is harmed. On the other hand, there are others who believe that animals are the ones being harmed and that we have no right to use them as guinea pigs. In the two articles “Animal testing is necessary to ensure product safety” by Partners in Research (PIR) and “The use of animals for medical tests is unethical and unnecessary” by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA ), provide arguments to support their claims about animal testing. While I am against animal testing, I believe Partners in Research has done a more convincing job of arguing that animal testing is necessary and the right thing to do to ensure human safety. In the article written by PETA, an animal rights organization, it discusses how thousands of animals die every year due to animal testing. This article does not describe any accidents that occur to animals when they are tested on certain products. PETA only describes the animals before their deaths, "some are forced to inhale toxic fumes, others are immobilized in restraints for hours, some have holes drilled into their skulls, and others have their skin burned or spines crushed " (1).PETA begins the article with the pathos method as an appeal to the audience's emotions. This technique causes readers to feel sympathy for the animals that die every year during the animal testing process. For example, PETA states: “the animals at the center of the article… their side of the argument and PIR's tone seemed to put readers at ease and diminish concern about animal testing. Both organizations used effective rhetorical strategies such as pathos and logos to address their audiences. Works CitedResearch, PIR Partners. “Animal testing is necessary to ensure product safety.” Animal testing. Ed. Ronnie D. Lankford, Jr. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2009. In question. Rpt. from "Product Safety Testing". PIR partner research. 2008. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Network. March 10, 2014. "The use of animals for medical tests is unethical and unnecessary." The ethics of medical tests. Ed. Tamara Thompson. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012. In question. Rpt. from "Animal Experiments: Overview." People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals [PETA]. 2011. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Network. March 10. 2014.