0 Two large bluebooks (8 1/2 x 11) with no writing in or on them
0 Pens with blue or black ink
0 Paper or hardback dictionary (not required)
You will not know which article you will be analyzing until the day of the exam. For
studying purposes, it will be one of these three articles we have gone over in class:
0 Mitchell (423-425)
0 Naishe (410-412)
An Account of an Argument
This paper asks you to identify. an argument’s claim and reason. You will also need to gxpfln the
general context for the argument, the author’s purpose and audience and how you have been able
to determine the context/audience/purpose based on clues from inside and outside of the text. It
also asks you to describe the author’s (a) supporting evidence and (b) overall structure, and
finally, evaluate the argument in terms of its purpose and audience.
Successful essays will include:
0 An introductory section that provides all the information the audience will need to
understand your argument. This includes the topic of the writing project and yfl
argument claim and reason about the author’s use of good reasons.
0 A statement of the claim/reason of of the article.
0 A discussion of the general context, author’s purpose and author’s audience, supported by
evidence from inside or outside of the text
0 A description and evaluation of supporting evidence. A description and evaluation of the
gganizing structure of the article. To evaluate the article’s evidence and organization,
you may want to ask yourself these questions:
0 Where do you find facts and evidence in the argument? Direct observation?
Statistics? Interviews? Surveys? Primary sources such as eyewitness accounts?
Secondary sources such as published research? Quotations from authorities?
Hypothetical situations? Analogy? Allusion? Personal Experience?
0 Is the information presented in a logical order? Does the author use chronological
order, cause/effect, problem/solution, general to specific, or other ways of
organizing information? Do those structures help make the argument more
CHAPTER 17 Enhancing HUlTlflnS’ How Far Is loo F-ar’? 519 i l
QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION
There has been a great deal of concern about the alliance between business and
American colleges in recent years. So the questions raised by the appalled academ- l
ics in the cartoon are serious questions, even if the economic incentives for turning
discoveries into profits are so great that they tend to overwhelm them. What do
you think about the issues raised, especially as they bear on business applications i
of genetic engineering? 1′
1 On Human Bioenhancements
C. BEN MITCHELL
C. Ben Mitchell is Graves Professor of Moral Philosophy at Union University and editor l
of Ethics and Medicine, the journal in which the following editorial first appeared. i.
1 Human beings are obsessive innovators. Homo sapiens (knower) is by nature Homo ll
faber (fabricator). Life without what philosopher Michael Novak has called “the fire -‘. , i
I – of invention” doubtless would be nasty, bloody, and brutish. Since biomedicine l l
and biotechnology are two spheres where innovation is especially rewarded,
it is no Surprise that we stand on the threshold of the development of human ‘l
2 We have attempted enhancement in many different ways, especially for our chil- l
dren: diet, exercise, music lessons, tutoring, athletics, and even cosmetic surgery. l
But for many people, there is something deeply troubling about bioenhancement
technologies, whether they are reproductive, genetic, neurological, or prosthetic
technologies. By ’bioenhancement’ I mean that these technologies magnify human 1
biological function beyond species typical norms. l
THERAPY VERSUS ENHANCEMENT l l
3 Ethical reflection about these technologies requires that we make some distinction
between therapy and enhancement. Therapies would include medical interventions l l
that restore human functioning to species typical norms. So, kidney dialysis, lasik
surgery, and angioplasty are therapies; but adding twenty IQ points to someone who 1 i
already has a normal IQ would be an enhancement.
4 Both proponents and critics of bioenhancements have argued, however, that the K
line between therapy and enhancement is vanishingly thin. But it may not be as faint
as some imagine. I was once in a conversation with a prominent fertility specialist ll
who used preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PCD) to help couples have children
without genetically-linked diseases. He told of a couple who came to him requesting l l
that he assist them to have a child who would have perfect musical pitch. Since they l
were both orchestral musicians and because there may be a gene associated with l’
aural acuity, they wanted a child to follow in their footsteps. He steadfastly refused.
He said he could not say exactly why, but his intuition was that it was unethical. Just l
because we cannot always make finely tuned distinctions does not mean distinctions
are impossible. Just because a bright line may not be drawn does not mean no line
can be drawn.