Ethicist: Some would ban cloning

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Conclusion Match12% picked this

   It supports the ethicist’s view that society does not value individuality as much as many opponents of

   According to this answer, the conclusion was that "society doesn't value individuality as much as many cloning opponents think it does". Nothing in the argument is dealing with individuality. The author is only arguing that, "I find your reason for banning cloning to be unconvincing".

   12%
2. B

   Bad Conclusion Match3% picked this

   It supports the conclusion that forcing children to pursue academic success

   According to this answer, the conclusion was that "it's okay to force children to pursue academic success". The implied conclusion is just a rebuttal to the first sentence, which says nothing about children or academic success. The author is only arguing that, "I find your reason for banning cloning to be unconvincing".

   3%
3. C

   Wrong Role: implication Too Strong: conviction6% picked this

   It is implied by the ethicist’s conviction that clones are

   The ethicist never weighs in on whether clones are or aren't subpeople, so we definitely can't say that she holds some conviction one way or the other. Saying that "X is implied by Y" means that "if Y is true, then X follows". So according to this answer choice, "If the ethicist believes that clones are not subpeople (we have no idea what she believes), then it follows that it is not illegal to use one person as a vehicle for the ambitions of another". Say what? This answer doesn't make any sense. The 2nd sentence is a premise that helps to imply the author's implicit rebuttal conclusion. It's not being implied by some other fact.

   6%
4. D

   Correct76% picked this

   It supports the ethicist’s view that vanity’s being the motivation for cloning is not enough of a

   Why this is right

   This gets the role correct (supporting) and gets the implicit rebuttal conclusion correct (your argument for banning cloning is unconvincing).

   Skill tested: Role · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   76%
5. E

   Out of Scope: should be changed3% picked this

   It describes a legal position that the ethicist argues should

   The author is not arguing that this legal position should be changed. To the contrary, she's saying, "Since we already find X legally tolerable, and the argument you're making against cloning is essentially similar to X, it makes your argument against cloning seem unpersuasive."

   3%