Good writers start each paragraph with a topic sentence to act as a
‘signpost’ for the reader. Topic sentences introduce the main idea of each paragraph so they make it easier for the reader to follow the arguments in a discussion. The paragraphs in your writing task 2 composition should include topic sentences of this kind.
Here are some paragraphs from compositions about xenotransplantation (the use of animal organs for human transplant patients) and vivisection (the use of live animals in scientific research). The topic sentences for the paragraphs have been removed. Match each topic sentence to the correct paragraph.
1... It is often claimed that drugs and cosmetics must be tested on animals to make sure that they are safe for human use. This, however, is no justification for the continuing use of vivisection as a standard research method. Many of these drugs are non-essential treatments such as vitamin tablets or eye drops. Similarly, lipsticks and deodorants are simply luxury items we could all live without. Should animals be made to suffer for these products?
2... Opponents of xenotransplantation argue that it is unethical to treat animals as though they were simply ‘machines’ or
‘plants’ for organ production. It is argued that animals feel pain and fear, and that it is not right for one species to exploit another in this way. This is easily refuted, however, since nature is full of examples where one species exploits another for survival. The most obvious example is the natural food chain, of which humans are also a part.
3... Some religious groups, for example, consider life-saving blood transfusion to be unethical. Similarly, when heart transplants first became possible in 1967, many people thought them unnatural. Few people today hold such views. In fifty years’ time, our society will probably
197
regard transplants of animal organs into human patients as perfectly normal.
4... Those who oppose this kind of research often argue that other methods do exist, such as using tissue slices, cell cultures and computer models. In fact, these techniques are used by researchers, but as yet they are not reliable enough to replace animal experiments
B But are the aims of animal research always defensible?
C Much of the debate centres on whether it is morally correct to use animals as a source of transplant organs.
D But are there other ways to meet the demand for organs for transplant patients?
E There is also the question of how reliable it is to use animals in place of humans when testing drugs.
F If there were reasonable alternatives to using live animals in experiments, no doubt scientists would use them.
G Views of what is ethically ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ are affected by our culture and society.
Read the sample answer to the writing task below, and find the mistakes. There are fourteen.
Rapid progress in the fields of genetics and gene therapy are likely to have profound effects on people’s lives in the foreseeable future. By altering people’s genetic make-up, it may be possible for doctors to cure hereditary diseases, and for parents to choose important characteristics for their children such as their sex or level of intelligence. Such a development would be a major breakthrough for humanity and would solve many present-day problems. To what extent do you agree or disagree?
198
The main aim of gene therapy until now has been to cure or prevent diseases which may in part have a genetic origin. In contrast, outside its medical applications, this area of science has a range of other possibilities, some of which are controversial.
One opposition to gene therapy concerns the long-term consequences genetic manipulation is possible to have. Some of the techniques used in gene therapy involve artificially altered human genes being passed down from one generation to another. It is argued that these genes must well mutate in unexpected ways, and might even cause new and possibly worse diseases in the future. This belief, however, is unconvincing, since all new medical techniques involve some degree of uncertainty. While it is well possible that there will be some undesirable side effects, the potential benefits, particularly the eradication of crippling hereditary diseases, make the risk worthwhile.
Another reason why some people oppose gene therapy has to do with individual consent. There is very likelihood that some parents will want to take advantage of gene therapy in order to enhance their children’s characteristics, such as hair colour or even intelligence. Opponents of gene therapy argue that parents would be doing this without the consent of either their children or the future generations who would be affected.
consequently, it is absolutely unlikely that parents would choose to alter their children in ways which the children themselves would not want.
A final objection is that some governments just could try to use gene therapy to create a kind of ‘super-race’ of people who are physically and intellectually superior, but lacking in individual character. This argument, indeed, is unjustifiable for two reasons. Firstly, in every probability, it would be impossible to practise genetic manipulation on such a massive scale. Secondly, there is small evidence to suggest that a person’s personality is determined by genetics alone. However, people will always acquire their individuality from their upbringing and education rather than solely from their genetic make-up.
In conclusion, I believe that gene therapy has a number of interesting possibilities, not just in curing diseases, but also in allowing parents to ensure that their children enjoy the advantages of growing up to be healthy and intelligent.
199