Task 2
- Submitted by: jraeb
- Views: 88
- Category: Other
- Date Submitted: 02/17/2016 11:14 AM
- Pages: 6
- Report this Essay
Janell Compton
C168 Task 2
In the following paper I will analyze the argument presented in passage one of the readings given for this task, the speech is about human cloning given at The White House in 2002. There are four sub-arguments that lead to the conclusion. Each argument supports the conclusion that the speaker was trying to get the audience to agree with. Although there are questions about the validity of the argument.
The first argument I uses the fallacy Appeal to emotion. The argument in standard form is:
2. Life is a creation, not a commodity
3. Our children are gifts to be loved and protected, not products to be designed and manufactured
4. Allowing cloning would be taking a significant step toward a society in which human beings are used for spare body parts, and children are engineered to custom specifications
5. How we answer the question of human cloning will place on one path or the other?
________________________________________________________________
* We can pursue medical research with a clear sense of moral purpose or we can travel without an ethical compass into a world we could live to regret
In the above argument the speaker uses the emotions that people feel towards children to defend the reasons that cloning would be something that we as a society would end up regretting. The supporting statements or premises for the argument lead the audience to feel sorry for the victims of cloning. He lays out two options for the conclusion of this sub-argument, “either we pursue medical research with a clear sense of moral purpose or we can travel without and ethical compass into a world we could live to regret.” This is an example of a disjunctive syllogism, M v E. The either or statement is the conclusion of the first argument, it leaves the audience with the question of what path society will be on if human cloning is allowed. The speaker is encouraging the fact that choosing human cloning or not choosing human cloning with...
C168 Task 2
In the following paper I will analyze the argument presented in passage one of the readings given for this task, the speech is about human cloning given at The White House in 2002. There are four sub-arguments that lead to the conclusion. Each argument supports the conclusion that the speaker was trying to get the audience to agree with. Although there are questions about the validity of the argument.
The first argument I uses the fallacy Appeal to emotion. The argument in standard form is:
2. Life is a creation, not a commodity
3. Our children are gifts to be loved and protected, not products to be designed and manufactured
4. Allowing cloning would be taking a significant step toward a society in which human beings are used for spare body parts, and children are engineered to custom specifications
5. How we answer the question of human cloning will place on one path or the other?
________________________________________________________________
* We can pursue medical research with a clear sense of moral purpose or we can travel without an ethical compass into a world we could live to regret
In the above argument the speaker uses the emotions that people feel towards children to defend the reasons that cloning would be something that we as a society would end up regretting. The supporting statements or premises for the argument lead the audience to feel sorry for the victims of cloning. He lays out two options for the conclusion of this sub-argument, “either we pursue medical research with a clear sense of moral purpose or we can travel without and ethical compass into a world we could live to regret.” This is an example of a disjunctive syllogism, M v E. The either or statement is the conclusion of the first argument, it leaves the audience with the question of what path society will be on if human cloning is allowed. The speaker is encouraging the fact that choosing human cloning or not choosing human cloning with...