prośba o sprawdzenie/poprawienie błędów

The reading and the lecture both are about medical tests, that use the animals. The passage states that such kind of experiments are useful and necessary, while the professor is definetly against the medical research performed on animals.

According to the reading, animal experiments are ethical, because the suffering of animals is reduced to the minimum. In order to eliminate the animal's pain, anesthesia are used. However, the professor do not agree with this pont. She says that she saw such experiments, and the animals are undoubtedly not treated in the same way like poeple are. What's more, she claims that to participate in any drug's tests the patient should agree to participate and the animals can not do this.

The second argument for the animal experiments, given by the reading, is that there is no other way to test the drugs such effectively. Humans and animal's genes are very similar and the same are the basic live functions. But the professor lists the other techniques, such as in vitro experiments on the tissues or computer simulation, which are effective too.

The next evidences for the animal experiments, according to the passage, are concrete examples of medicines which were invented thanks to the animal tests. The effectivness of drugs such as penicillin or insuline was proved by animal tests. In opposite to this, the lecture gives examples of drugs were founded without animal experiments. These substances are aspirin, ether and a malaria drug. These substances have terapeutic effect for people, but not for animals.

All in all, the professor see absolutely no good points in animal experiments and consider them immoral and not necessery. She claims that there are other possibilities to test drugs well.

[tytuł książki] and [Nazwisko profesora]'s lecture are both devoted to the use of animals in medical tests. The passage states that such kind of experiments are useful and necessary, while the [Nazwisko profesora] is against the medical research performed on animals.

According to the [tytuł książki], animal experiments are ethical because the suffering of animals is reduced to the minimum. In order to eliminate the animal's pain, anesthesia is used. However, the [nazwisko profesora] does not agree with this pont. [Nazwisko profesora] states that based on their <zwykle używa się słowa their żeby nie rozróżniać płci autora> observations of the experiments the animals are undoubtedly not treated in the same way as poeple. What is <nie wolno używać skrótów> more, [nazwisko profesora] claims that to participate in any drug tests the patient has to agree to participate and the animals cannot <cannot pisane jest razem> do so.

The second argument for the animal experiments, given by the [tytul ksiazki], is that there is no other way to test the drugs in such effective way. Humans and animal's genes are very similar in some cases and the basic life functions are often the same are. However, [nazwisko profesora] lists the other techniques, such as in vitro experiments on the tissues or computer simulation, which are effective too.

The other evidences supporting the animal experiments, according to the [tytul ksiazki], are concrete examples of medicines which were invented, thanks to the animal tests. The effectivness of drugs such as penicillin or insuline was proved by animal tests. In opposition to this, the lecture gives examples of drugs, which were founded without animal experiments. These substances are aspirin, ether and a malaria drug. These substances have terapeutic effect for people, but not for animals.

To sum up, [nazwisko profesora] sees absolutely no good aspects of the animal experiments and considers them immoral and unnecessery. [Nazwisko profesora] claims that there are other possibilities to test drugs well, such as in vitro experiments on the tissues or computer simulation, and proposes use of these rather than animal tests.

[]- Wstaw zmienną
<>- usuń komentarz po przeczytaniu
Dodatkowo dodałem kilka rzeczy, wiec dobrze prześledź tłumaczenie by się upewnić, że nie zmieniło w negatywny sposób sensu

The second argument for the animal experiments, given by the [tytul ksiazki], is that there is no other way to test the drugs in such AN effective way. Humans' and 'animal's' (tutaj l. mnoga to animals') genes are very similar in some cases and the basic life functions are often the same 'are' (niepotr).
The 'effectivness' (ortog) of drugs such as penicillin or insuline was proved by animal tests.

W pełni się zgadzam, co dwie głowy to nie jedna.

Dziękuję :)

Dlaczego l.mn i apostrophe w tym zdaniu?

wg mnie
animal's - odnosi sie do jednego
animals' - odnosi sie do wiele

W/g mnie, powinno byc:
Human and animal genes ....