|
Read the article and answer the questions below it:
USING ANIMALS FOR PEOPLE’S BENEFIT
Do we have the right to make animals work for us? We have long thought we do, and when we compare the moral arguments for and against having working animals they seem insignificant when compared to the case for and against intensive farming practices and the vegetarians’ view that it is better to refrain from eating eggs and chickens, let alone larger animals, than think of the cruel methods used to produce such food.
But let us consider animals which, while contented and well-cared for, also play an invaluable role. Did you know about ‘fire dogs’? The nose of a trained fire dog is over 200 times more sensitive than the most sophisticated electronic detection equipment and not only can it do the work in a fraction of the time it takes the electronic equipment devised to detect substances (known as contaminants or accelerants) which are likely to cause fires, the dog can be more reliable. Given that speed and reliability are important factors in stopping fires developing this seems to put an irrefutable case for using dogs to protect lives. Added to this, for dog-lovers, the fire dog may also save the lives of other dogs as well as humans. Until we have the technology to replace the sniffing ability of these specially trained dogs the human race can be very thankful for the existence of fire dogs.
The record of dog use in sniffing out mines in Cambodia is not so unblemished. Dogs were promised to Cambodia to detect the millions of unexploded mines left in the ground after years of civil war. They would be fast, efficient and less dangerous to human life than the slow, painstaking methods in practice. The Swedish armed forces had expertise in this, and they generously came with their dogs to train Cambodians in the use of ‘land mine dogs’. They had found German Shepherd dogs the best breed and so a team of dogs with their masters who not only respected but loved these dogs arrived to start work. Two years on, the first mine to be sniffed out by a dog had yet to be picked up: there were many unforeseen difficulties. The Swedish dogs were unsuited to the hot, humid climate of Cambodia and had to be kept in very clean, air-conditioned kennels, and were unable to work outdoors after 9 a.m. when the heat became unbearable for them. The diet for the dogs was so greatly superior to the food of the local people that resentments arose over the more favourable treatment given to dumb animals. Nor was there full conviction that the dog was reliable: what if the dog knew there was a mine but simply didn’t bother to let the handler know, leading to a tragedy later?
So what are we to conclude? There are the ethical questions and also the purely practical: are we right to put our faith in animals to make our world a safer place?
|
These statements are either true (T) or false (F) or the article does not say (DS). Circle the correct answer.
a) Vegetarians are in favour of using dogs to detect mines T F DS
and fire risks.
b) Dogs trained to detect fire risks are both more reliable T F DS
and effective.
c) Fire dogs have to go into burning buildings. T F DS
d) Land mine dogs were up to 200% more sensitive than T F DS
the electronic equipment.
e) The diet of working dogs in Cambodia was better than T F DS
the humans’ diet.
Make opposites of these adjectives used to describe the working dogs by adding the correct prefix, as in the example.
unreliable
reliable
sensitive
accurate
effective
intelligent
loyal
considerate
|
