Comparison of Animal Rights Texts

774 Words2 Pages

Comparison of Animal Rights Texts

I am going to compare two pieces of text called: 'It's a crying shame'

and 'Sorry, but I think dying people are more important than dumb

animals,' by an Animal Rights Group and Polly Toynbee respectively.

The first article is intended to appeal to a younger audience who

think that killing animals is wrong because they are cute etc. The

second extract is aimed at adults who are interested in the welfare of

human beings. The Animal Aid leaflet is persuasive as it is trying to

pledge donations to stop animal experiments. The newspaper article is

informative and persuasive by saying that killing an animal to save

humans is good because would you rather die than an insignificant

canine or rat.

The Animal Rights leaflet is very eye catching. It has a colour image

of a dog, which appears to be crying. The size of the text is varied

form size 22 to 9 points and is in the font Arial which is an easier

to read font than Times New Roman. There are three columns in which

text is displayed. They use the colour purple a lot and a sort of

reddish pink colour. Colour images are used well as they portray how

graphic an image is and makes people feel sorry for the animals. The

colour purple is soft and loving and is also eye catching. It will

also attract women who feel strongly for animal rights. The text is in

small chunks making the text easier to read and eye catching, also if

the text is in chunks it seems like less to read.

The newspaper article is very plain and boring, defiantly aimed at the

mature audience. It contains an image of the author, Poly Toynbee, in

black and white and the text is Times New...

... middle of paper ...

....

Poly Toynbee's article uses mainly very blunt and to the point

language. She also uses real life facts and statistics: 'only 5 per

cent of medical research uses animals.' And 'Maybe because only 7 per

cent of the population is vegetarian, so an out-and-out vegetarian war

wouldn't catch the public imagination.' This proves points very well

and gets it to the reader plainly and simply. As before she is trying

to get the reader to approve of her opinions and to simply really care

about human welfare.

Overall, I agree with Poly Toynbee's argument. Personally, I would

much rather survive than a canine or rat. Human life is one of the

most important factors in this millennia's time frame and as the world

is ultimately going to be destroyed we should inhabit it as long as

humanly possible, no matter what the cost…

Open Document