IMPORTANT PLEASE READ FULL INSTRUCTIONS. NO PLAGIARISM! NO QUOTES, MUST PARAPHRASE. I WILL CHECK FOR RECYCLED WORK AND PLAGIARISM. THIS ASSIGNMENT IS DUE 08/15/22 AT 9PM PST. IF YOU CANT MEET THIS DEADLINE, DONT AGREE TO DO MY ASSIGNMENT. PRICE ISNT NEGOTIABLE. PLEASE UNDERSTAND BY ACCEPTING TO DO MY WORK, I HAVE STRICT RULES. I DONT LIKE TO DISPUTE, BUT I WILL IF DIRECTIONS ARENT BEING FOLLOWED. IF I SEE SOMETHING WRONG AFTER PURCHASING, I WILL GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO FIX IT IMMEDIATELY. THIS DOESNT MEAN HOURS LATER. IF YOU TURN SOMETHING INTO ME EARLY, I EXPECT YOU TO FIX MY ASSIGNMENT IMMEDIATELY. DONT LIE TO ME, IF THESE RULES ARENT FOLLOWED, I WILL DISPUTE
When testing for chemical toxicity and saving human lives, most of us would agree that no shortcuts should be taken and no expense spared. It is also true that some experts believe that live-animal tests are better for toxicity testing than tissue assays (in vivo vs. in vitro testing), and human subjects are far superior to animal subjects. Therein lies the question. Reflect on your feelings about the resulting conflicts of animal rights, human rights, and balance these against the strengths and weakness of using human volunteers, animal models, and living cells for testing the toxicity of environmental chemicals. Present a persuasive argument for your viewpoint yet be certain to acknowledge points in favor of the opposing view. Demonstrating balance in an argument is a critical component to addressing community challenges. You must back your opinion with cited short quotes from at least two Scholarly, Peer-Reviewed, and Other Credible Sources (Links to an external site.) and acknowledge the opposing views of an equal number of cited credible sources.
Your journal assignment should be at least 500 words in length.