Q20 - Genetic engineering has aided new developments

[skapur777]

Is this a question that attacks the premise of the argument? Because C could be negated and what would follow is that the conclusion couldn't be reached by the premise "since selective breeding is genetic engineering", but the conclusion could still stand right?

SB>GE
SB>~UE

GE>~UE


That's what C says right? Even with this assumption, all they do is shore up one possible method of attack on the conclusion but the conclusion doesn't completely follow.

Now if we negate C:

SB>GE
SB>UE

GE>~UE

The conclusion could still stand here right? But it's now impossible to link the premise with the conclusion, whereas with the first you still have the possibility to do so...am I missing some logic rule here or something??

[noah]

The conclusion of this argument is that genetic engineering is ethical. Why? Because genetic engineering is basically the same thing as selective breeding, which we've done for a long time.

What's the gap? Try this: smoking is healthy. Why? Because smoking is basically the same as controlling fire, which we've done for a long time. What would you say if your kid said this argument? Probably something like "So?! Is controlling fire even healthy?!"

Same thing here. I accept that genetic engineering is the same thing as selective breeding, and sure, we've done that breeding for a long time, but maybe that selective breeding is unethical too!

(C) addresses this gap. And, if we negate it, and it turns out that selective breeding is unethical, than we surely can't make this argument. How does bringing up an unethical equivalent help us argue something is ethical?

There's another way of debating this argument: who says that is something is the same as selective breeding, than it's OK to do.

I'll have to think about the more formal approach.

As for the wrong answers:

(A) is about a tool of genetic engineering. It's OK if that the tool is sometimes unethical - we care about whether the overall process is unethical. Another way to look at this is to consider if it would be a problem for the argument if genetic manipulation were sometimes unethical (the negation of this answer choice). No, it isn't. Perhaps genetic manipulation is unethical if it's done for the purposes of torture, but that doesn't mean we can't conclude that genetic engineering (a more broad topic) can be considered ethical since we've been doing it for a long time. In the end, this answer, at best, is only referring to the conclusion -- we need an assumption that helps link the premise to the conclusion.

(B) is out of scope - nature?!

(D) is out of scope - important for human survival?

(E) is similar to (B) - who's talking about nature?

Shoring up one way to attack an argument is what necessary assumptions often do. The conclusion able to stand is OK when you are using the negation test. As you started to note, the issue is whether we can definitively conclude the conclusion from the premise. We're asked for an assumption of the argument, not the conclusion.

[Djjustin818]

Hi,

I still don't understand why A is wrong. I was debating between A and C and I chose A but don't really know why. I don't understand what you mean by, it was just a tool for genetic manipulation

[sumukh09]

Hi,

I still don't understand why A is wrong. I was debating between A and C and I chose A but don't really know why. I don't understand what you mean by, it was just a tool for genetic manipulation

By "tool" he just means that it's a method by which genetic engineering is performed - but the method of manipulating genes itself is not under scrutiny in terms of whether it is ethical or not. The end product of the manipulation of genes is what we're concerned with and in this case "selective breeding for desired traits" is what's being scrutinized under ethical grounds. This is why answer choice A is incorrect; manipulation of the genetic code is what leads us into the ethical debate; it is not the focus of the debate.

[noah]

Hi,

I still don't understand why A is wrong. I was debating between A and C and I chose A but don't really know why. I don't understand what you mean by, it was just a tool for genetic manipulation

By "tool" he just means that it's a method by which genetic engineering is performed - but the method of manipulating genes itself is not under scrutiny in terms of whether it is ethical or not. The end product of the manipulation of genes is what we're concerned with and in this case "selective breeding for desired traits" is what's being scrutinized under ethical grounds. This is why answer choice A is incorrect; manipulation of the genetic code is what leads us into the ethical debate; it is not the focus of the debate.

What sumukh said.

(And I went back and edited my original post to explain a bit more about (A).)

[raziel]

I also think (A) is wrong because it is essentially restating what the scientist says. However, like others said, it takes what he states and goes beyond that by using the word NEVER.

The scientist is trying to show that genetic manipulation is not unethical. The techniques are described as unethical because they require genetic manipulation. This says that he is trying to show that genetic manipulation is not unethical, since the purpose of the passage is to prove those guys wrong. He does this through the selective breeding evidence. The scientist assumes that the manipulation of the code through selective breeding is not unethical.

[aradunakhor]

I guess this is too far-fetched, but selective-breeding doesn't count as something 'accomplished by nature'? That's what I thought, which is what led me to choose B.

[noah]

I guess this is too far-fetched, but selective-breeding doesn't count as something 'accomplished by nature'? That's what I thought, which is what led me to choose B.

That's interesting. I can see what you mean: don't certain plants and animals choose their mate by selecting the strongest, largest, most colorful, or most suave-talking candidate?

However, as you suspect, here the argument has indicated that "selective breeding" is something done by humans.