logical fallacy

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19726492.800-editorial-sad-truth-about-animal-experiments.html
EVERY year, in labs around the world, millions of animals are killed in the pursuit of scientific knowledge. Indeed medical science relies on the assumption that the death of animals is a sad but necessary part of progress.
Usually, the task of administering the coup de grace falls to the same technicians who have spent months or years looking after the animals. It now appears that these people are deeply upset by this part of their job (see "Grief and stress among those who care for lab animals"). That is hardly surprising: how would you feel if someone asked you to kill an animal you had been looking after? Yet so sensitive has the issue of animal experiments become that this problem has been ignored.
Cynics might argue that those who feel bad should simply get another job. Antivivisectionists might say the new finding shows that animal research hurts people as well as animals. But both miss the point. Animal technicians grieve because they care about the animals they look after, even while they recognise that the experiments they are used for are legitimate. It is time for universities and other employers to offer emotional support and public recognition to these technicians. Perhaps it is also time for scientists to include them more within research teams, and thank them in published papers for the indispensable role they play.

Dear Author,
Your article “Sad Truth About Animal Experiments” definitely had an emotional appeal that hit me hard and made me quite sad. The pathos used is obviously emotional due to the fact that the first sentence talks about millions of animals being killed just for scientific purposes. I think you did a very nice job using the pathos. This pathos has a very effective appeal, however later in the article you used a couple logical fallacies. One fallacy is seen in the statement that “these people are deeply upset by this part of their job” and the other fallacy is in the sentence “animal technicians grieve because they care about the animals they look after, even while they recognize that the experiments they are used for are legitimate”. These fallacies you used were “false cause fallacies”, because you falsely assume that the technicians grieve and you falsely assume “these people” are upset. You could correct this fallacy by stating that you assume they feel guilty and that they should feel guilty. But just because of the pathos used, doesn’t mean that the technicians do feel guilty. Some people are heartless and really would not feel guilty if they killed an animal for a scientific purpose, therefore you cannot assume that these people and technicians do. You also could correct this fallacy if you got an actual quote by a technician that was upset and grieving the fact that he or she killed the animals in the scientific research. Since you do not provide a quote or evidence, the editorial has a few logical fallacies that could easily be fixed. I think if you corrected these and continue using the pathos and could even add some ethos that this article would be very effective and get the point across perfectly.