Some people argue that all experimentation on animals is bad and should be outlawed. However, others believe that important scientific discoveries can be made from animal experiments. Can experimentation on animals be justified? Are there any alternatives?

Some people argue that all experimentation on animals is bad and should be outlawed. However, others believe that important scientific discoveries can be made from animal experiments. Can experimentation on animals be justified? Are there any alternatives?

To check whether a product or procedure is suitable for human consumption, or not, is clinically tried on animals. This system is widely debatable; some say this is necessary and justified, while others disagree and suggest alternatives. Thus,  to reach a justified conclusion an imperative analysis is required.

To start with, this process is deemed to be necessary to ensure that humans do not have to suffer the consequences of unknown reactions of hazardous chemicals. If animals were not used in laboratories, it would become complicated to judge the consequences of a product and its use might jeopardize lives of people. 

In addition, the animals used in these tests are not exotic, are found in significant numbers, and are otherwise killed in other ways because they are considered pests and eliminated in millions every year. For instance, rats and monkeys, usually used as test subjects, are poisoned or shot by either farmers, municipalities and even people annually; they present a threat to human food, health and habitats. Therefore, it is quite justified to use them for clinical procedures.     

However, animal activists criticize this practice and profess that animals are the creation of nature, and humans do not have any right to harm them, or kill them, or cause them misery in any way. Nevertheless, even though many suggest using computer-aided simulation and human tissue cloning as alternatives to this, their reliability is highly questionable because they are in their infant stage and need more development. Thus, until then testing on animals must continue. 

In conclusion, I would say that animal testing is inevitable and plays a crucial role in scientific discoveries. However, to make this process more sophisticated and relieve animals of the pain of experiments, development of other ways should be speeded up. 

Some people argue that all experimentation on animals is bad and should be outlawed. However, others believe that important scientific discoveries can be made from animal experiments. Can experimentation on animals be justified? Are there any alternatives?

Some people argue that all experimentation on animals is bad and should be outlawed. However, others believe that important scientific discoveries can be made from animal experiments. Can experimentation on animals be justified? Are there any alternatives?  

The debate surrounding conducting clinical trials on animals is the most heated in the healthcare and cosmetics sectors. While this practice is deemed as acceptable, some raise concerns, which though can be overlooked in the favor of public good at large. 

Discovery of numerous vaccines, medicines, surgical procedures, and so on, requires a trial on living beings in order to determine their impact on physiological functions, and outcomes, so it is justified to experiment on animals, as without this, medicines, procedure, or even cosmetics cannot be deemed fit for human consumption. Several ailments inflicting kidney, brain and heart, and terminal illnesses: cancer, facing humans have been treated using remedies and procedures perfected through this arrangement, saving  billions of lives that  would have been lost to preventable disease.

Moreover, there is little room for objections regarding these settings; the fauna used to carry out research is not exotic, or nearing extinction, but those such as monkeys and rodents that are considered to be a menace, and culled in millions by farmers, animal control boards and other agencies  through either poisoning or being shot. 

As far as  exploring alternatives is concerned, there are few alternatives, except using cloned human tissue to evaluate the effectiveness of  medical intervention on humans, which is yet to prove its credentials by virtue of being in its rudimentary stage, and needs more research to realise its potential. However, till then the  invaluable human life cannot be left at its own device to fend for itself against ailments and diseases. 

Overall, objections raised by the critics of animal testing fail to hold  ground in the face of the need to provide effective safeguards against illnesses, infections and disabilities, and medical conditions. This must continue until a potent alternative to this system is discovered. 

Some people argue that all experimentation on animals is bad and should be outlawed. However, others believe that important scientific discoveries can be made from animal experiments. Can experimentation on animals be justified? Are there any alternatives?

Some people argue that all experimentation on animals is bad and should be outlawed. However, others believe that important scientific discoveries can be made from animal experiments. Can experimentation on animals be justified? Are there any alternatives?  

A  fierce debate has ensued about experimenting on animals  because some believe that is illegal  and animals are also living beings, but some disagree. The following paragraphs will discuss this matter and share plausible conclusions and explore other  ways of this matter .

To start with, experimenting on animals it’s very harmful and painful for them. For example, as per PETA, many animals meet painful death every single year, they are injected with chemicals and substances  every day, sometimes twice or thrice in a day, and are locked in glass boxes with a dim light because this is part of their experiment. Consequently, thousands perish [die] because of these harmful experiments.  

However, experimenting on animals is not bad because they test only those species who are in huge numbers, like  monkeys, rats, dogs, guinea pigs, and so on. Every year, these animals are killed in huge numbers because they are considered their pests, and many are shot and given poison by farmers and city authorities. A study conducted by University of New South Wales, compared the number of animals killed by  farmers and those killed by  laboratories, and found that 10,000 to 1. 

Similarly,  this system is very important because there is no other way of testing medicines and surgical procedures. Several medicines tested on animals like polio,covid, and many more, have been helping to  protect human lives from disease. Moreover, many surgical procedures like liver transplant,heart transplant, brain surgery have been tested on monkeys and pigs, and then used on humans.

In conclusion, these tests are justified because there are no other ways of testing, and also the animals being used are otherwise killed in big numbers.  this should continue new technologies found that can replace it.

Some believe that pets should stay at home at all times, while others feel they should be allowed outside the home. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

Some believe that pets should stay at home at all times, while others feel they should be allowed outside the home. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

Pets should stay at home at all times. Why? 

• They can jeopardize safety of others 

• They can become vulnerable to mishaps, being run over by vehicles 

• They can also be stolen 

• They can become susceptible to health hazards 

• 
  

They should be allowed outside the home. Why? 

• This allows them to become familiar to surroundings and neighbors 

• This can keep them healthy and also cheerful 

• Mitigate boredom and aggressive behavior 

Whether pets should remain confined to their homes, or should they be taken  outdoors, is an issue that evokes mixed reactions. However, I strongly feel that outdoor endeavors are acceptable on condition that appropriate precautions are embraced while taking animals out. 

Those strictly averse to the idea of permitting dogs, cats, and other animals, kept at home, to enter the public domains feel that such expeditions by these creatures can jeopardize the safety, and sometimes the life of others. The behaviour of animals is quite unpredictable and their aggressive instincts can be triggered without warning, resulting in unannounced attacks even on neighbours. To corroborate, nearly fifty percent of all dog bite cases in New York are an outcome of dogs of those living in neighbourhood charging at victims. 

Similarly, these poor creatures themselves become susceptible to mishaps if they are let out of the homes such as being over-run by vehicles. To exemplify, as per the PETA report of 2025, nearly thirty thousand tamed dogs are crushed by cars and buses everyday in cities like London, and mostly within the close vicinity of their homes, reinforcing the belief that they are safer inside. 

Nevertheless, outdoor ventures of pets should not be curtailed; these afford a suitable mechanism to ensure wellness and regulate aggressive behaviour. Taking a monitored stroll on streets, and engaging in guided games in  parks, and sniffing around, among others, can render a healthy distraction, some independence, and a chance to abandon sedentary lifestyle, thereby evoking friendly behaviour in the animals, besides keeping them healthy.

Overall, the concerns expressed by the critics of outings by pets are quite justified, but circumscribing is unreasonable and unjust. This activity should be permitted in controlled conditions, wherein the owners bear the accountability of unforeseen incidents.   

Some people argue that all experimentation on animals is bad and should be outlawed. However, others believe that important scientific discoveries can be made from animal experiments. Can experimentation on animals be justified? Are there any alternatives?

Some people argue that all experimentation on animals is bad and should be outlawed. However, others believe that important scientific discoveries can be made from animal experiments. Can experimentation on animals be justified? Are there any alternatives?

There is  an ongoing debate about experimenting on animals  because some believe that is illegal  and animals are also living beings, but some disagree. The following paragraphs will discuss this matter and share plausible conclusions and explore other  ways of this matter .

To start with, experimenting on animals it’s very harmful and painful for them. For example, as per PETA, many animals meet painful death every single year, they are injected with chemicals and substances  every day, sometimes twice or thrice in a day, and are locked in glass boxes with a dim light because this is part of their experiment. Consequently, thousands perish [die] because of these harmful experiments.  

However, experimenting on animals is not bad because they test only those species who are in huge numbers, like  monkeys, rats, dogs, guinea pigs, and so on. Every year, these animals are killed in huge numbers because they are considered their pests, and many are shot and given poison by farmers and city authorities. A study conducted by University of New South Wales, compared the number of animals killed by  farmers and those killed by  laboratories, and found that 10,000 to 1. 

Similarly,  this system is very important because there is no other way of testing medicines and surgical procedures. Several medicines tested on animals like polio,covid, and many more, have been helping to  protect human lives from disease. Moreover, many surgical procedures like liver transplant,heart transplant, brain surgery have been tested on monkeys and pigs, and then used on humans.

In conclusion, these tests are justified because there are no other ways of testing, and also the animals being used are otherwise killed in big numbers.  this should continue new technologies found that can replace it.

Some people argue that all experimentation on animals is bad and should be outlawed. However, others believe that important scientific discoveries can be made from animal experiments. Can experimentation on animals be justified? Are there any alternatives?

Some people argue that all experimentation on animals is bad and should be outlawed. However, others believe that important scientific discoveries can be made from animal experiments. Can experimentation on animals be justified? Are there any alternatives?

 Many believe that testing done on animals is wrong, so it should be banned; however, others say that for great scientific discoveries these undertakings should be continued. I fail to subscribe to the notion of proscribing such clinical trials, for these hold critical importance for society. 

To commence with, there are umpteen great discoveries being made only due to the research done on animals. To corroborate, the invention of great medicines such as paracetamol, savlon, and crocin, to name a few, has only become possible after these were first tried on rats. In an interview, Aditya Kapoor, a doctor, at AIIMS Delhi, asserted that before the launch of any new medicine its effectiveness is checked on mice, and only after that it is released for human consumption.  

Similarly, several cosmetics like cleanser, toner, foundation, concealer, and many more, have their implications checked on animals first, if the test is successful, only then it is recommended for use by consumers. On top of that, the trials are not done on endangered species, as many are aware about their significance, it is only practiced on monkeys and rodents, among others, that are treated as pests and killed or poisoned in millions every year.  Furthermore, by virtue of being the supreme inhabitants, no experiments can be done on humans; the only option left is animals. 

Despite the advancement in state-of-the-art tools, there are not any other options available which can aid in discoveries. The researchers practicing at labs have failed to find any other option to try their experiment.

In conclusion, the trials done on animals are justified as there are no other alternatives available. Moreover, these experiments resulted in the launchment of several medicines, cosmetics which have proved to do wonders in human life.

As public safety is one of the highest importance, it is often necessary to test on the animals first new products on animals. It is better for a few animals to suffer than for human life to be placed at risk by untested products. To What extent do you agree or disagree?

 As public safety is one of the highest importance, it is often necessary to test on the animals first new products on animals. It is better for a few animals to suffer than for human life to be placed at risk by untested products. To What extent do you agree or disagree?

Contemporary times have witnessed groundbreaking discoveries, primarily in medicine and other lifestyle products,  most of which have been first tried on animals. This fact has irked many animal right activities, who treat such a move with indignation, but there is a lobby that lends its support to this experimentation.   

A sizable lobby opines that of products on animals is important because the physiology of certain mammals is similar to humans; therefore, it aids scientists to develop various drugs and treatments which are crucial in saving or safeguarding the lives of people from fatal diseases such as HIV, cancer, and deadly tumours; in turn, incumbent for improving the overall quality of life. Moreover, trying out new products on animals is imperative so that they can be checked for any side effects they could jeopardize human safety. 

This can be exemplified by quoting the revelations of several researches that state that there is a conspicuous decline in the number of deaths among females due to introduction of animal experimentation in the field of cosmetics, which was earlier very high owing to high ammonia content present in it.

However, critics are up in arms against this practice. They profoundly feel that this is an injustice being meted out to the poor beings like rodents, guinea pigs and monkeys, to invent or innovate. Countless  animals which are subjected to painful procedures either perish during the process, or are condemned to lead a painful life, in captivity, suffering from deformities due clinical trials.  

Overall, I opine that despite certain advantages attributed to carrying out the animal trials, it is very unethical and immoral and must be discouraged promptly. There is a need to adopt a humane attitude towards those sharing space with mankind on this planet.

Some people say that animals can be used in any way for the benefit of humans. Others say that exploiting animals for human purposes is not acceptable. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

 Some people say that animals can be used in any way for the benefit of humans. Others say that exploiting animals for human purposes is not acceptable. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

It is justified to use animals for satisfying human requirements:  *why?  

1.  

2. This relationship is also justified on the rationale of animals being a medium that has allowed humans  progress; carry out their jobs; and ensure their lives. This reference is often quoted also from various scriptures. 

It is unjust to use them for human purposes: why? 

1. Inflicting pain, or confinement to small areas, is inhuman: all beings appeared on this planet by the wonder of nature and humans do not have the right to destroy something for their own selfish motives.  

The biggest and most controversial debate of the contemporary times revolves around the issue of whether it is justified for mankind to use animals to fulfill its objectives in various spheres, or not. This has fetched mixed responses from the partisan groups sparring over this issue.

The opinion that extends the right of making use of animals to serve human objectives is based on the age old association, which has existed since time unknown. Humans and these being have enjoyed companionship in one, or the other form, but it has been reciprocal too: where, if human society has used these creatures for transportation for moving people and goods; rendering food items, like diary products and meat; for guarding their homes and businesses; and also as pets, they have also paid back appropriately by providing the latter with food,saving them from starving, and shelter, protecting them from predators.

Moreover, the support for this view also comes from the scriptures and  orthodox beliefs, which profess that humans are the owners of this planet and every other being has existed to be used as an asset. This makes their claim about using the power and resources generated  by animals rightful and valid, as they profess.

However, a lobby of animal activists treat this attitude with indignation. Noone gave mankind a right to cause pain and misery to the poor creatures: both man and the animal are cohabitants and thus reserve the right to lead their life, the way they want, without causing disturbance and annoyance to each other.

Overall, I feel although human beings the most intelligent of creations of nature, do enjoy the privilege of using animals to serve their objectives, they must ensure that they do not cause harm to helpless and hapless creatures. 

Some people argue that all experimentation on animals is bad and should be outlawed. However, others believe that important scientific discoveries can be made from animal experiments. Can experimentation on animals be justified? Are there any alternatives?

 Some people argue that all experimentation on animals is bad and should be outlawed. However, others believe that important scientific discoveries can be made from animal experiments. Can experimentation on animals be justified? Are there any alternatives?

Clinical trials on animals have long roused bitter controversies, with some deriding this practice, deeming it cruel, and demanding prohibition, whereas others claim that such research remains essential for major scientific and medical breakthroughs. I believe in the absence of more credible options, such procedures must continue.  

Those opposing treat such endeavors with indignation, and argue that it is unethical to harm living creatures for human benefit: subjecting them to pain, fear and distress, toxic substances, and surgeries, or behavioural studies raises moral concerns. Similarly, many maintain that humans are not entitled to exploit animals simply because they cannot defend themselves. 

Nevertheless, supporters of this system vehemently defend such activities; they are pivotal to the development of life-saving medicines and understanding diseases. Historically, several breakthroughs - such as vaccines for polio and rabies - were achieved through animal studies. Researchers argue that before prescribing drugs to humans, evaluating their safety on animals is critical, for this can help circumvent severe side effects, justifying controlled and regulated use of this method for the sake of mankind.  

Although the opponents suggest that advancements in technology have introduced several state-of-the-art alternatives: laboratory testing using human cells, computer simulations, and artificial intelligence to predict toxicity and drug interactions, these  machine-based models are prone  to producing unpredictable outcomes that fail to clearly predict the impact of simulation tested substances  on the human  body, making it quite risky to release such products for human consumption, upholding the need for continuation of such exploration.   

Overall, while animal experimentation raises serious ethical concerns, it can still be deemed warranted  in cases where the research is essential for medical progress, but lacks any plausible alternatives. Nonetheless, continued investment in modern scientific methods should be encouraged so that dependence on animal testing can be gradually mitigated.

Many believe that it is important to protect all wild animals, while others think that it is important to protect some, not all of them. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

 

Many believe that it is important to protect all wild animals, while others think that it is important to protect some, not all of them. Discuss both views and give your opinion.

Protect all? Why 

• Every animal is an integral part of ecological balance and thus humans must put efforts to protect all of them, it is their ethical responsibility  
• **Absence of some animals may result in increase in the risk of disease and other problems 

Protect only some, why?

• Many animals and birds have been able to adapt to the transforming environment for instance those surviving in urban environments and villages 
• Some animals are in fact considered as pests and saving them could mean affecting society adversely  
• Many animals that are rare and exotic  are nearing extinction and without human intervention they may completely disappear
• **Many animals have been affected due to the human activities, and their disappearance could mean a disaster to nature and let loose several problems 

 

When it comes to protecting wild fauna, many have  a suggestion that efforts should be made to protect all the species. However, there is dissent on this issue as some feel that conservation programmes should include only certain types.

 A lobby of environmentalists is in favour of preserving each wild species that exists on this planet since it is the moral and ethical responsibility of humans since their interaction with the environment and their efforts to develop have resulted in destruction of several natural habitats, disturbing the life cycle of the poor wild beings and leaving them homeless. 

 Similarly, each living being is an integral part of the  ecosystem and enjoys a critical importance, and disappearance of any of these could prove to be catastrophic for society and expose humans to unprecedented dangers. To cite an example, mass extermination and disappearance of birds in the mid-sixties in China allowed the population of pests to flourish phenomenally. This resulted in extensive crop damage, leading to widespread famine that eventually led to death of thousands due to hunger. 

Nevertheless, the other section proposes focusing on conservation of only a selected species, for this section feels that it will amount to squandering of invaluable resources on preserving those, which have  learned  to adapt to the transforming surroundings such as monkeys, rodents and pigeons, to name a few. These creatures are found in abundant numbers in wild, rural and urban locales. The need of the hour is to safeguard the exotic wild beings that are nearing extinction and may die out without timely human  intervention.

Overall, despite both the views being true in their own virtue, I feel the latter view holds substance. Priority should be given to those beings that are on the brink of disappearing. 

            

 

Many animals are in danger of extinction. Some people say that we should protect only those animals, which are useful to humans. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

 Many animals are in danger of extinction. Some people say that we should protect only those animals, which are useful to humans. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Throughout the history of mankind, several species of fauna have died out. However, despite appreciating this fact, some suggest that the only crucial animals should be taken care of rather than all. I firmly disagree with this statement and shall discuss my view in further paragraphs.

Undeniably, certain animals are important assets and integrated into the daily life of humans,and have helped perpetuate human existence. To be precise, in terms of agricultural revolution, transportation and dairy food products consumption all started with cows and other species of animal kingdom that has been serving society; thus, these is considered to be the special for mankind and to ensure they should never reach the brink of extinction, they should not only be saved but also bred in huge numbers to help preserve species from a possible natural disaster.

However, even though the former claim may seem to be plausible in social and economic concerns, it falls flat in terms of environment: disappearance of any of the species has a potential to threaten all forms of life, including humans. It is undeniable that every living being is an integral part of a bigger ecological picture and the food chain, and if any of this vanishes, the whole system would crumble and collapse, affecting humans as a result. It is hard to overlook an instance that clearly corroborates this aspect: the man-made famine in China that  resulted in extermination of birds that led to an increase in the population of pests, causing destruction of the crop.  

Overall,  although a few animals are essential to human lives to help in flourishing, other animals are equally important to maintain the food chain so that danger to human life can be eliminated entirely. Thus, all animals must be protected. 

Some people regard animals as the source of food or clothes. Others think that they should be treated like pets. Do you agree or disagree?

 Some people regard animals as the source of food or clothes. Others think that they should be treated like pets. Do you agree or disagree? 

Modern thought favors treating animals as companions rather than a resource of nourishment and clothing, but there are voices of dissent on this notion. I shall be analyzing this statement and the contra view, and conclude whether this is an agreeable notion or not.  

Many treat the traditional opinion about animals being a part of nourishment and clothing provision with contempt and feel that these creatures  should be meted out fair treatment and be considered as companions. I, nevertheless, fail to subscribe to this notion.  

To start with, there is a strong opinion against this notion - which is also justified to a certain extent. It cites the age-old practice, where humans have interacted with their co-inhabitants of the planet by rendering them shelter and, in exchange, using them for feeding the human population, in the form of dairy products such milk, butter and cheese, to name a few; and meat and eggs. Had these beings not there, it is believed that the human race would not have survived - it debuted as hunter gatherers who started populating various parts of the planet - and would have perished and disappeared.     

Having said that, the lobby of animal activists puts its weight behind the proposal  that animals should not be abused for personal objectives of mankind. They profess that creatures are also creations of nature, and thus  man does not enjoy ownership over them. Therefore, no one has the right to exploit these creatures for various purposes, or inflict pain and death upon them. These beings deserve to be treated as companions and family members and rendered due care. Moreover, in times of extensive development of technology that spans across the field of food production - enabling artificial synthesis - there is little rationale left in using these creatures.  

Conclusion: we have to agree or disagree (no middle path) 

Overall, even though the reasons quoted in support of this statement hold true to a certain extent, I fail to concur with it since if humans started abandoning use of animals as source of nutrition and clothes, many would perish and chaos would descend. 

Some people think that zoos are cruel and all the zoos should be closed. However,other people think that zoos are useful to protect the rare animals. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

Some people think that zoos are cruel and all the zoos should be closed. However,other people think that zoos are useful to protect the rare animals. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

 

Ielts Essay Zoos Boon or Bane 

Zoological parks have always invited wrath of detractors as they terms these places as illegal and impractical, however,  certain naturalists find these locations quite practical. Both partisan groups cite their reasons in support of their views.

Zoos, as per proponents, provide  a safe refuge to conserving near extinct species, in the times when illegal hunting and poaching are at their peak – that has cause disappearance of some of the rarest  animals from the face of the planet. These places despite confining wild beings into cages and enclosures, they help keep the poor beings safe and instead run breeding programs that help bolster dwindling populations of endangered wild life.

Moreover, zoological parks do not only offer a healthy entertainment to the people but also act as a potential source of informing them, especially children - the future citizens, about the critical importance of animals and birds in maintaining the ecological balance of the planet.  The  subtle message passed along with amazing experiences helps enlighten people about the diversity of life on the Earth, and inspire them to involve in protecting the natural habitats and contain illegal hunting.

Nevertheless, critics will be critics: they always tend to rouse the most sensitive emotions of humans by terming these locations as illegal confinements, which many resent. Zoos all over the world subject animals and birds to an unwarranted torture by locking them up in small enclosures: distorting their natural life cycles. Even the nutrition rendered is unlike what these beings would afford in their natural habitats: cumulatively these factors adversely affect mental and physical well-being.

In a nutshell, controversies and derision apart, zoos have a great functionality in the current times, when planet is being denuded and wild beings being killed. Hence, all the criticism should be side-lined and zoos must be promoted.

As public safety is one of the highest importance, it is often necessary to test new products on animals. It is better for a few animals to suffer than for human life to be placed at risk by untested products. In what extent do you agree or disagree?

As public safety is one of the highest importance, it is often necessary to test new products on animals. It is better for a few animals to suffer than for human life to be placed at risk by untested products. In what extent do you agree or disagree?

 

Ielts Essay - Cruelity on Animal 

Off late as the animal lovers have been raising their pitch against use of animals being used as test beds for medicines and cosmetics, various sections of the society have been at poles. Some feel this is testing on animals is sheer cruelty, while others think that there is nothing wrong in this.

Activists vouching for animal rights feel that testing impact of medicines and other substances is unethical since this involves subjecting poor animals to the trauma of sickness and disease. It is quite cruel to put lives of animals in danger for the sake of humans.  

However, testing on animals has been going on since a long time, and the animals used for experiments are not on the endangered list, but ones that perish or are killed, each year, by use of rat poison, rat traps, etc. Several million humans owe their lives to the successful lab simulations on the animals. The effectiveness and safety of use of such formulations were actually proven by these very tests.

Similarly, scores of medicines and surgical procedures have been perfected with the help of lab testing on the rats and mice. Although nowadays scientists are happy carrying out tests on simulated environment of computers, it is impossible to test use and effectiveness of pacemakers, reattaching severed limbs and procedures like kidney and heart transplants on virtual environment. All of these processes were actually tested and perfected in clinical trials. Without using animals for testing formulations or procedures for effectiveness and safety, the medical field would come to a standstill and jeopardize lives of millions of patients waiting desperately for some respite from their medical conditions.

To conclude, I feel that there is nothing wrong in carrying out experiments  on animals for sake of saving humans lives. 

Many people keep dogs and cats as companions. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of this practice.

Many people keep dogs and cats as companions. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of  this practice.

 

Add caption

Humans have been domesticating animals since they started settling down in form of communities and settlements. Canine and feline animals have been considered to be closer to heart by some people. This practice has also drawn flak from other members of community who feel that keeping pets is inhuman and cause of disturbance to others and this practice should be discontinued.

Keep canine and feline animals as pets is quoted as merit laden concept by many people. As per them, these animals are human friendly and they successfully adapt themselves to the conditions in which their human masters live without many changes in their own living rhythms. These four legged beings also sometimes fill the void of lonely people who either live alone or do not have families and children. Besides being considered as companions by lonely people, some families consider these humble beings as part of families.

Besides filling the voids, animals like dogs also act as guards and protectors for the families and people living around. Many families love to keep specific breed of hunting and guard dogs as they help in maintaining a strict vigil against any unwanted intruders and trespassers inside the colonies and neighborhood. Similarly, felines are considered to be good antidotes against pests like rats and moles.

On other hand, there are many detractors to this practice. As per them these animals are a big nuisance for the neighborhood. People often complain of disturbance by these very pets on account of disturbance because of consistent barking by domesticated dogs day and night and cats sneaking into next doors and creating ruckus. Moreover, children of neighborhood often run the risk of being bitten by these pets.

To conclude, I personally feel that keeping pets has more benefits than drawbacks.