SamplesReviewCloningBuy essay
← Consumer Electronics' CompanyUnited States and China →

Custom Cloning Essay

Cloning is a sensitive topic where different people have different perspectives about cloning. In this case, different authors use different techniques to write this topic to explain different ideas to their readers. In addition, authors have a way of connecting their readings with other writers to make a compelling argument to convince their readers. The main theme about these two readings is the perspectives of human cloning. Is human cloning ethical or unethical? In this case, a comparative analysis of John L. Conley and Ian Wilmut is done to show connections of their readings about cloning and strategies the two use to make a convincing argument.

According to Wilmut, he is trying to convince readers about human cloning. Wilmut as a scholar, suggest that using of cloning in the medical field can be extremely advantageous. In the reading, he is showing the importance of human cloning by giving several examples. On the other hand, Wilmut agrees that people have excellent reasons to fear if cloning was to be allowed in medical laboratories. In addition, Wilmut is trying to show readers that if they remove political perspective of cloning and apply medical perspectives, they will notice that cloning is not unethical at all. Instead, it is ethical and life saving to the world (Wilmut, 2008). For this reason, people who are trying to oppose cloning, can change their perspective and agree with Wilmut perspectives.

One of the main arguments by Wilmut is that cloning can be of medical benefit to the world. In this case, Wilmut strategically provides readers with ample evidence to show the advantages of cloning. For instance, he is providing readers with the example of stem cells. According to this example, cloning can be used to create stem cells for purposes of healing people in the hospitals (Wilmut, 2008). This shows readers that cloning is a necessary research that should be allowed by the necessary authorities. Moreover, he is strategically using these examples to concede with the thesis of his article. Additionally, he is organizing these strategies in a continuous prose for purposes of producing excellent argument for readers.

The second argument Wilmut is using to convince his readers is that cloning can be used to create new drugs and testing purposes. The author uses this point because currently there are no methods to define the drugs working effectively and those ones do not (Wilmut, 2008). In this case, Wilmut is strategically using facts to prove this argument. For example, he is comparing how difficult is for pharmaceutical companies to make tests that will provide conclusive evidence about the drugs. Therefore, if cloning would be used, provision of conclusive evidence is going to save people’s lives. The strategy Wilmut applies is extremely effective because readers have facts and at the same time, they have evidence.

On the other hand, Wilmut is strategically providing information to readers who are opposing the idea of cloning. Many people who are opposing are arguing that it will be extremely expensive to use cloning for medical purposes. Additionally, it will be unethical to clone human beings. In this situation, he is countering these arguments by providing explanations to show opposing readers that their perspectives are dealt with amicably. This strategy used by Wilmut is eradicating all the fears readers have about cloning. For this reason, it is true to say Wilmut is extremely applying convincing writing skills that show readers importance of cloning in the medical laboratories.

However, Wilmut is not providing sufficient evidence to show the implications of cloning. This is because Wilmut is so biased and he is providing information on one part of the discussion. In this case, he is not showing opposing sides arguments. For instance, he is trying to show readers that cloning is important to the world and if not applicable people are not in an excellent position. In this case, the article does not have enough content to for the subject of discussion. Although Wilmut is trying to show readers about the advantages of cloning, it would have been better if he were showing the other side of cloning. For this reason, Wilmut is not convincing readers about cloning.

The article by Conley is also about cloning. In this case, Conley is writing the different perspectives people have about cloning. This is where Conley is starting by showing the disadvantage of cloning. This way he is trying to show readers the unethical side of cloning. Moreover, he is using evidence to show readers the disadvantages of cloning. Finally, the other part of the article, Conley is trying to show readers the advantages of cloning (Conley, 2008). Conley is strategically using the evidence available to show readers that cloning can really work to the advantage of the people if politics was not being applied in cloning. It should be noted that Conley is not biased in any way because she has not made a stand on the argument. Instead, she is providing evidence for the two sides (Conley, 2008).

First, Conley is suggesting that cloning is lowering the human dignity and is not considerate about the human feelings of conjugal rights. Additionally, the characteristics of social interactions are not respected (Conley, 2008). Conley is also applying evidence like Wilmut to explain his facts about the disadvantages of cloning. However, the only difference between the two authors is that Conley is talking about the disadvantages of cloning using evidence while Wilmut is trying to counter the disadvantages of cloning. For instance, Conley talks of how it is unethical to clone human being while Wilmut suggest of how cloning expenses can be reduced in the end. The two strategies are helping both authors convey their message to readers.

Secondly, Conley is discussing the advantages of cloning. In this case, he is using the medical perspective of cloning. To prove this, he is using facts to prove the importance of cloning to show readers that cloning can be a better idea if only people did not consider the political perspective. This strategy of writing by Conley is improving the contents of the paper (Conley, 2008). Similarly, Wilmut is applying the same strategy in his article to convince readers that cloning is of great significance if people were to apply it correctly. This way the contents of the two articles are significantly strong due to the strategy the two authors are applying. For this reason, evidence usage by the two authors is proving to be helpful to the two authors in writing these articles.

Conley is not biased in any way while writing the article. In this case, he is providing evidence on both sides of the argument for readers to choose the side of the argument they feel is best for them. This technique is helping readers to make informed decision about cloning. Moreover, being unbiased is making the evidence conveyed in the article to be quantitative because it does not look personal. On the other hand, Wilmut is extremely biased since he is only showing one side of the story (Wilmut, 2008). He is using the article to convince opposing readers the advantages of cloning. For this reason, he is trying to collect all evidence that supports cloning. For this reason, he is not bringing out the claims clearly. In this case, Wilmut techniques making it seem personal comprising the judgment of readers.

Finally, Conley is arranging the article in continuous prose where first he is dealing with unethical perspective of cloning then completing with medical advantages of cloning (Conley, 2008). This arrangement is making the article to be easy to follow for readers and make a judgment. On the other hand, Wilmut is not using organization in the article. The article by Wilmut is a bit mixed up because at one point Wilmut is trying to show the readers importance of cloning and on the other hand, he is trying to convince the readers that their fears are solvable. In this case, it is difficult for the readers to follow through the paper. Therefore, it is true to say that both authors have similar arguments but Conley is more convincing than Wilmut because he is organizing work in a continuous prose to show readers the two sides of cloning.

Conclusion

As an author, convincing readers about what one is writing is the most difficult and important activity in an article. The authors are supposed to use strategies that will increase the quality of their work to become convincing to the authors. In this case, different authors use different tactics to prove their ideas even if the topic is the same. Using the topic of cloning, Wilmut and Conley are using different strategies to show readers different implications of cloning. First, Wilmut is using a lot of evidence and facts as part of to prove that cloning is important. Similarly, Conley is also using the same strategy. The reason they are doing this is to convince readers with concrete evidence different implications of cloning. On the other hand, they Conley is not biased in his writing while Wilmut is one sided. Therefore, two works can be comparable.

Custom Cloning Essay

Code: Sample20

Related essays

  1. United States and China
  2. Feminism
  3. Consumer Electronics' Company
  4. Digital Music
On your first order you will receive 20% discount
Order now PRICES from $12.99/page ×
Live chat