Scientist: Genetic engineering has aided

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong2% picked this

   The manipulation of the genetic code of organisms is

   "Never unethical" is far stronger than the argument needs. The scientist only needs to show that this kind of genetic engineering is not unethical — not that no manipulation of any genetic code in any context could ever be unethical. Negate this answer ("manipulation is sometimes unethical") and the argument can still go through, because the scientist's case rests on the parallel to selective breeding, not on a blanket claim about all genetic manipulation. So this is not a necessary assumption.

   2%
2. B

   Bad Assumption5% picked this

   Anything that is accomplished by nature is not unethical to accomplish

   The argument is not built on a "natural means ethical" principle. It is built on a "selective breeding is acceptable, and genetic engineering is just a refined version of that" principle. Negate this answer (some natural things are unethical to accomplish with science) and the argument can still go through as long as selective breeding itself is ethical. Not necessary.

   5%
3. C

   Correct90% picked this

   The manipulation of the genetic code through selective breeding for desired traits

   Why this is right

   This is the missing link. The argument concludes that genetic engineering is not unethical based on the parallel to selective breeding. That parallel only helps if selective breeding itself is not unethical. Negate this answer — "selective breeding for desired traits is unethical" — and the precedent gives the scientist nothing. The whole argument falls apart, which is the test for a necessary assumption.

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

   90%
4. D

   Out of Scope2% picked this

   The manipulation of the genetic code through selective breeding for desired traits is important

   The argument is about whether genetic engineering is unethical, not whether selective breeding is important for human survival. Importance and ethics are two different topics. Negate this answer (selective breeding is not important for human survival) and the ethics argument is unaffected. Not necessary.

   2%
5. E

   Too Strong1% picked this

   Science can accomplish only what is already in some sense natural, and nothing

   "Nothing natural is unethical" is a sweeping ethical claim the argument never relies on. Plus, the scientist is arguing about a human-engineered practice (selective breeding), not "what nature does." Negate this and the argument still holds because the reasoning rests on selective breeding being acceptable, not on a universal claim about nature.

   1%