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. Gillette’s argument is not persuasive, however, because he fails to consider that such knowledge might ultimately harm human beings more than it would benefit them.

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.”

A
Gillette’s argument wrongly assumes that deciphering the genetic code will lead to cures for genetic disorders.
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 code might ultimately harm human beings more than benefit them.
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 possible negative consequences, genetic research should not be conducted.
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 a thorough knowledge of genetics would enable us to cure over 3,000 disorders is overstated.
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 unconvincing because it ignores certain possible consequences of genetic research.
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.

13 comments

Many uses have been claimed for hypnosis, from combating drug addiction to overcoming common phobias. A recent experimental study helps illuminate the supposed connection between hypnosis and increased power of recall. A number of subjects listened to a long, unfamiliar piece of instrumental music. Under subsequent hypnosis, half the subjects were asked to recall salient passages from the musical piece and half were asked to describe scenes from “the film they had just viewed,” despite their not having just seen a film. The study found that the subjects in the second group were equally confident and detailed in their movie recollections as the subjects in the first group were in their music recollections.

Summary
A recent study explores the connection between hypnosis and increased power of recall. The subjects of the study listened to a long, unfamiliar piece of music. After subsequent hypnosis, half of the subjects were asked to recall passages from the musical piece and the other half were asked to describe scenes from a film “they had just viewed” but have in fact not seen. The study found the group that recalled the film were equally confident and detailed in their recollections as the other group in their music recollections.

Strongly Supported Conclusions
What people recall under hypnosis could be influenced by things suggested to them.

A
Many of the claims made on behalf of hypnosis are overstated.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus what claims are being made on behalf of hypnosis. We only know that an experimental study suggests that there’s a connection between hypnosis and recall.
B
Hypnosis cannot significantly increase a person’s power of recall.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know if hypnosis absolutely cannot increase a person’s power of recall. Rather, the experimental study seeks to establish that there may be some connection.
C
Recalling events under hypnosis inevitably results in false memories.
This answer is unsupported. To say hypnosis “inevitably” results in false memories is too strong. It’s possible, but we don’t know this for sure based on the stimulus.
D
What people recall under hypnosis depends to at least some extent on suggestion.
This answer is strongly supported. The experimental study in the stimulus is one instance where suggestions may have influenced what the subjects recalled.
E
Visual memory is enhanced more by hypnosis than is auditory memory.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know anything about a person’s visual memory based on the stimulus. We don’t know whether visual memory is a part of a person’s ability to recall information.

13 comments