Question

Directions: Carefully read the following sources, including the introductory information for each source. Construct an original, well-organized argumentative response that presents a clear claim, incorporates expository/explanatory techniques, and answers the research question for the specific purpose and audience shown below. Your written response must be supported with evidence gathered from at least one of the sources provided.

Research Question: Should humans continue to rely on animals to improve their lives, or should people limit human–animal interactions to protect animal welfare?



Scenario: You help write for your school’s digital magazine. The next issue explores how people across history have relied on animals for farming, transportation, war, and companionship—and whether those relationships have always been fair to the animals involved. Analyze and interpret the three sources that show how humans and animals have shaped societies and each other. Then you will construct an argumentative text using information from at least one source.

Audience: Animal Welfare Organizations and Advocates. These groups are deeply invested in ethical treatment of animals.



Purpose: To persuade animal welfare advocates that humans should (or should not) continue relying on animals for essential roles like farming, transportation, and companionship.



Sources:

First Source: “Harms and Benefits of Animals” (Infographic)
Second Source: “An Animal’s History of Humanity” (Audio)
Third Source: “The Human-Animal Bond Throughout Time” (Article)

Answer 1

Claim: Humans should dramatically limit nonessential reliance on animals and reorganize the ways we use animals so animal welfare, not human convenience or profit, is the guiding principle.

Why this matters to your organizations
Animal welfare groups have long argued that compassion should shape human–animal relationships. The historical record and current science—summarized in the three classroom sources—show both how deeply humans have depended on animals and how that dependence has often caused suffering. That history does not justify continuing harmful practices. Instead it creates an ethical obligation and an urgent practical opportunity to reduce harm, adopt alternatives, and protect the animals we still rely on.

Evidence from the sources
- The infographic “Harms and Benefits of Animals” lays out the tradeoffs clearly: animals have provided food, labor, transport, and companionship for millennia, but those benefits have come at costs to animals’ health, autonomy, and lives. Confinement, overwork, injury in war or transport, and slaughter for food are listed as direct harms alongside the human gains.
- The audio “An Animal’s History of Humanity” traces domestication and the instrumental roles animals played—pulling plows, carrying goods, serving in warfare—showing how our societies were built on animal labor. Crucially, the narration emphasizes that many of those roles were shaped to meet human ends, often with little regard for the animals’ wellbeing (e.g., selective breeding for traits that increase human utility but can cause pain or disease).
- “The Human-Animal Bond Throughout Time” describes how companionship can be mutually beneficial but also how cultural practices have justified exploitation. The piece notes that affectionate bonds coexist with practices that harm animals (factory farming, entertainment industries), highlighting a moral inconsistency that welfare advocates must confront.

Argument and reasoning
1) Historical dependence does not justify ongoing harm. The sources document why animals were essential in earlier societies, but they also show the human-created systems that produced predictable suffering. Past necessity is not the same as present necessity. Technology and social change have replaced or can replace many animal functions—tractors and trucks for transport and plowing, refrigeration and agriculture innovations for food supply chains, and synthetic or plant-based alternatives to animal products—so continuing animal exploitation is increasingly a choice, not an inevitability.

2) Some uses of animals are inherently high-risk for welfare and should be phased out. Practices that systemically harm animals for entertainment, status, or convenience—circuses, fur, many forms of factory farming, animal-based testing where alternatives exist—should be banned or drastically reduced. The infographic’s listing of harms underscores that such industries produce consistent, severe welfare deficits.

3) Remaining uses must be restructured around consent-equivalent standards and demonstrable mutual benefit. Where animals continue to provide companionship (service animals, therapy animals) or where working animals are still used (in limited, well-regulated contexts), strict welfare standards must apply: enforceable limits on working hours and conditions, veterinary care, retirement plans, and independent welfare oversight. The audio’s description of mutually beneficial bonds (such as early human–dog relationships) supports prioritizing interactions where animals clearly benefit, not just humans.

4) Alternatives are practical and ethical. Mechanization, humane farming reforms, plant-based and cultured foods, virtual or mechanical entertainment, and non-animal testing methods are increasingly available. Advocacy groups should push for policies and funding that accelerate these alternatives. The article on the human-animal bond suggests that affection for animals makes people receptive to better options; your organizations can use that empathy to promote demand for animal-friendly products and laws.

Recommended policy and advocacy steps for animal welfare organizations
- Prioritize campaigns that replace inherently harmful uses (factory farming, animals in circuses, fur industries) with achievable legislative goals and consumer campaigns.
- Support and fund development and adoption of alternatives (plant-based and cultured meat, robotics for labor, non-animal testing).
- Push for strong regulatory frameworks for any continued animal labor or companionship roles: mandatory welfare standards, independent inspectors, traceable supply chains, retirement/sanctuary requirements.
- Educate the public about the historical roots of animal use and the moral choice we now face—using materials that mirror the balanced perspectives in the sources: acknowledging benefits while foregrounding harm and alternatives.
- Build coalitions with public health, environmental, and labor groups to show the broad advantages of reducing reliance on animals (lower disease risk, reduced environmental impact, better worker safety).

Anticipating objections
Objection: Many communities and economies still depend on animals for subsistence. Response: Limitations should be phased and equitable. For subsistence contexts, support for transitions—microgrants, technology transfer, culturally sensitive alternatives—should accompany restrictions. The goal is to reduce needless suffering while protecting human livelihoods during change.

Objection: Companion animals are essential for mental health. Response: The article on the human-animal bond affirms the deep value of companionship. The claim here is not to eliminate companionship but to ensure it is ethical: adoption instead of breeding mills, enforcement against hoarding, and welfare-first pet ownership education.

Conclusion
The three sources collectively show that humans shaped animals to serve human ends—and that doing so often produced suffering that cannot be morally ignored. As an ethical and practical matter, animal welfare organizations should push to limit human–animal interactions that cause harm, accelerate humane alternatives, and tightly regulate any remaining uses so that animals’ interests are central. Doing so aligns historical compassion with 21st-century capabilities and moral responsibility—protecting animals while advancing public health, environmental sustainability, and social justice.