Hi teachers,

This is my IELTS writing. Could you please help me check and give me some advice to improve it?

Nowadays animal experiments are widely used to develop new medicines and to test the safety of other products. Some people argue that these experiments should be banned because it is morally wrong to cause animals to suffer while others are in favour of them because of their benefits to humanity.

Discuss both views and give your own opinion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Taking advantage of animals to examine the effect of new medicines or other products has opened an intense debate over the past few decades. While there are numerous arguments for and against this action, as far as I am concerned, a compromise would be an entirely reasonable and justifiable solution.

On the one hand, animal experimentation has helped scientists create safety products for people and contributed to the development of science. In fact, although every new pharmaceutical has been well researched before putting on for people, there always exist latent hazards which cannot be aware of at all. This could lead to serious effects if such medicines were provided to patients without any checks on living body. Therefore, testing medicines on animal would minimize and anticipate the dangers that could happen before applying it for people. Additionally, the study of science demands sacrifices as well as the purpose of science is to serve human beings after all. Then, if animal testing is totally necessary, people should still do so.

On the other hand, animal testing has several upsides and ethical aspects that people need to take in to account. Firstly, animals are living creatures which have their own emotions and feel the same pain, hurt, and joy as people. Thus, it is considered morally wrong to use them in this way solely for human benefit. Secondly, animals are not completely identical to people in terms of structural biology. The reaction of drug in an animal’s body would be quite different from that in people. Therefore, success in animal experiments does not equate to human safety, not to mention that many of these tests have no real-life purposes and may never be used for anything useful. Consequently, the use of animal for scientific research is believed to be not only a cruel practice, but merely a waste of time and money.

In conclusion, animal experiments should be conducted in a humane way following by a set of strict rules. The line between science and morality sometimes is hard to define, which means emotion may be the ultimate determining factor in this conflict.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you very much for your help!Emotion: smile
Taking advantage of animals to examine the effect of test new medicines or other products has opened an intense debate over the past few decades. While there are numerous arguments for and against this practice, action, as far as I am concerned, a compromise would be an entirely reasonable and justifiable solution.

On the one hand, animal experimentation has helped scientists create safe ty products for people and contributed to the development of science. In fact, although every new pharmaceuticals has been are typically well researched before they go on sale, putting on for people, there always often exist latent hazards which cannot be always discovered in time. aware of at all. This could lead to serious effects if such medicines were provided to patients without any checks on a living body. Therefore, testing medicines on animals would minimize and anticipate the any potential dangers that could happen before applying it using them for people. Additionally, the study of science demands sacrifices as well as the purpose of science is to serve especially when it comes people's health. human beings after all. Then, Therefore, if animal testing is totally necessary to establish the safety of a vital medicine, then it makes sense to do it. people should still do so.

On the other hand, animal testing has several upsides issues associated with it and ethical aspects that people need to take in to account. Firstly, animals are living creatures which have their own emotions and feel the same pain, hurt, and joy as people. Thus, it is many consider it ed morally wrong to use them in this way solely for human benefit. Secondly, animals are not completely biologically identical to people. in terms of structural biology. The reaction of a drug in an animal’s body would not necessarily be the same as quite different from that in people. Therefore, success in animal experiments does not equate to human guarantee the safety of a drug. , not to mention that many of these tests have no real-life purposes and may never be used for anything useful. Consequently, the use of animals for scientific research is believed by some to be not only a cruel and unjustified practice. , but merely a waste of time and money.

In conclusion, animal experiments should be conducted in a humane way following by a set of strict rules. The line between science and morality sometimes is hard to define, which means emotion may be the ultimate determining factor in this conflict.

[There was a hint for you in the essay question "safety of other products" to talk about animal testing for unessential products such as cosmetics. You could have done that in your second paragraph.]
Thanks for your kind help, teechr. I still have some questions, please help me:
teechralthough new pharmaceuticals are typically well researched before they go on sale putting on for people
I'm a bit confused about the use of "put on", according to Cambridge Dictionary:

put on = to produce or provide something, especially for the good of other people or for a special purpose:
e.g. She put on a wonderful meal for us.
or They've put on a late-night bus service for students.

Is "put on for people" wrongly used or just unnatural?

Another question:
teechrthere always often exist latent hazards which cannot be always discovered in time.
Does"in time" here mean "eventually"? (I found this definition in Oxford Dictionary )

And the last question:
teechr[There was a hint for you in the essay question "safety of other products" to talk about animal testing for unessential products such as cosmetics. You could have done that in your second paragraph.]
I have tried to express this in my original post:
not to mention that many of these tests have no real-life purposes and may never be used for anything useful
But it seems to me that this sentence is grammatically wrong or not clear,... How about:

The reaction of a drug in an animal’s body would not necessarily be the same as that in people. Therefore, success in animal experiments does not guarantee the safety of a drug. Also, many of animals are used for non-medical products such as cosmetics, which could be tested on human instead.

Once again, thank you very much, teechr. Emotion: happy
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
huynguyen158Is "put on for people" wrongly used or just unnatural?
It's typically used to refer to events or services, not so much with products.
huynguyen158Does"in time" here mean "eventually"?
No, I used it to mean "before it's too late."
Have a look at meaning #1 below.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/in-time
huynguyen158Also, many of animals are used for testing non-medical products such as cosmetics, which could be tested on humans instead.
You can add that to the end of your original paragraph.