It is a case well known throughout history. It is called survival of the fittest. If a laboratory animal were maybe a little faster, a little quicker, or a little smarter, possibly not to get caught, then they would be known as the fit. Lab animals were not the fit. Especially since they are now held in captivity with a tremendous ability that most ordinary rats only dream about. Lab rats, and all lab animals, are potential life savers.
Lab animals are the property of organizations, institutions, or laboratories. Researchers have the right to the use of any material belonging to the laboratory, including the lab animals, to prove or disprove their hypothesis. With the use of these animals, scientists will have the ability to see if treatments and potential cures are working as hoped or failing.
Maybe all of those people that disagree with the use of lab animals should think of somebody they love. Now imagine that person they love having a disease. Those diseases only have the potential to be cured by research that was provided by a lab using controls such as animals. Then maybe those who disagree would have a different opinion and can trust that science has a need for lab animals.
I agree with your stance, but not with the way you back it up. If survival of the fittest is the basis for us being able to use animals, then I should also be able to capture any person that I am more fit than and use them for research or whatever. In that case, small children, babies, little old ladies, and nerdy dudes would all be test subjects in my lab.
Tips for improving: use a more universal argument that is always true, use more supporting ideas for your position.
Find out everything you need to know about poop here:
http://progressiveu.org/000701-everything-you-need-know-about-poop