Self-study
Ethicist: Robert Gillette has argued that because a thorough knowledge of genetics would enable us to cure the over 3,000 inherited disorders that affect humanity, deciphering the human genetic code will certainly benefit humanity despite its enormous cost. ██████████ ████████ ██ ███ ███████████ ████████ ███████ ██ █████ ██ ████████ ████ ████ █████████ █████ ██████████ ████ █████ ██████ ████ ████ ██ █████ ███████ █████
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Robert Gillette’s argument isn’t convincing because he doesn’t consider that decoding the human genetic code might harm people more than it helps them.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is the ethicist’s disagreement with Robert Gillette’s hypothesis that deciphering the human genetic code would benefit humanity. The ethicist ultimately concludes that Gillette’s argument is “not persuasive.”
7.
Which one of the following ████ ██████████ █████████ ███ ██████████ ██ ███ ██████████ █████████
a
Gillette's argument wrongly ███████ ████ ███████████ ███ ███████ ████ ████ ████ ██ █████ ███ ███████ ██████████
This misstates the conclusion. The ethicist agrees that decoding the human genetic code could cure genetic disorders but argues that, despite this benefit, it might still do more harm than good overall. Since Gillette has not considered this possibility, his argument is flawed.
b
Deciphering the genetic ████ █████ ██████████ ████ █████ ██████ ████ ████ ███████ █████
This is a premise. The ethicist’s main conclusion is that Gillette's argument isn't convincing. The possibility that deciphering the genetic code “might ultimately harm human beings more than benefit them” supports this conclusion by explaining why Gillette’s argument is flawed.
c
Because of its ████████ ████████ █████████████ ███████ ████████ ██████ ███ ██ ██████████
The ethicist does not make this claim. The ethicist argues that Robert Gillette's argument is not convincing but does not say that genetic research as a whole should be stopped just because Gillette did not fully consider the consequences of decoding the human genetic code.
d
Gillette's claim that █ ████████ █████████ ██ ████████ █████ ██████ ██ ██ ████ ████ █████ █████████ ██ ███████████
The ethicist does not make this claim. The ethicist agrees that understanding genetics could cure over 3,000 genetic disorders but argues that the research could also have negative consequences, possibly causing more harm than good despite its potential to cure so many disorders.
e
Gillette's argument is ████████████ ███████ ██ ███████ ███████ ████████ ████████████ ██ ███████ █████████
This states the main conclusion. The ethicist argues that Gillette’s argument is flawed because he ignores the possibility that decoding the human genetic code could ultimately harm humanity. Since Gillette didn’t consider this potential consequence, his argument is unconvincing.