Instead, the two points presented in the thesis, which are the high risks and costs involved in human cloning, were not substantiated and elaborated on in his essay. Content wise, the essay presents several weak claims and supporting details indicating a failed attempt at utilizing a Toolkit-Warrant model. While the author may have included his own insights, his arguments are generally weakly substantiated as a result of the lack of evidences, examples and citations. In paragraph 7 for instance, the writer made an attempt to incorporate surveys but the lack of citations and proper statistics makes it a weak claim.
Another example occurred in paragraph 4. The author used Doll Hitler as a case study; however, he failed to relate his example to the topic of human cloning. The supporting detail here was poorly developed. Moreover, the argument is a weak claim because it is substantiated by the author’s assumptions only. As a result, the argument appears unconvincing to readers. Irrelevant sentences are found throughout the essay that might result in noise that decreases accuracy in getting the main idea across. Sentence 4 in paragraph 2, “..
Would probably benefit from human cloning”, contradicts the argument that human longing will damage balance of nature and exceed the world’s carrying capacity, which is a disadvantage of human cloning. Furthermore, there is no explanation provided on how human cloning benefits humans. Hence, it is an irrelevant supporting detail. At the end Of the paragraph, yet another irrelevant detail was found. It was mentioned that the price of oil is decreasing slightly. This is redundant as the current oil prices are not directly related to human cloning. There appears to be fallacies in his essay.
The slippery slope fallacy, for example, is reflected paragraph 3. It is said that cloning will change family dynamics and result in single parenting of clones; thus, the society will be divided into two distinct groups that will ultimately give rise to discrimination between them before possibly causing a big war. There is no evidence to believe that one event will lead to the other. Moreover, in paragraph 6, claims such as “most people would agree that” are not supported by sufficient evidence or statistics. This is characteristic of a hasty generalization when a conclusion is made about a population based on an insufficient sample size.
One Of the essays main problems Stems from the red herring fallacy. In the author discussed about the advantages of cloning animals. The essay was diverted from its original main idea. This is a form of noise that disrupts the audience’s train of thoughts. As a result, the purpose of the essay became unclear towards the end of the essay when a new discussion was introduced; thus, failing to achieve essay unity. Moreover, there is usage of unsuitable language that does not serve the purpose of the essay. Firstly, there was an excessive usage of personal pronouns such as “l” and “MY’. Secondly, certain sentences, like “I think… , are in the active voice. Thirdly, several contractions (I. E. Rd, can’t and wouldn’t) were found throughout the essay. Lastly, the usage of colloquial words and expressions (I. E. “that’s not the point” and “Whatever”) are evident. These indicate an informal tone that is unsuitable for an academic writing. Language can also affect the noise of the essay. The presence of qualifiers such as, “probably” and ‘Vivaldi” reduces the essays convincing abilities for instance. Likewise, the lack of conjunctions and punctuations resulted in a not concise and ineffective sentence in the 3rd run-on sentence of paragraph 2.
Rhetorical questions are also as seen in paragraphs 5 and 6. These are inappropriate for academic writing and risk being misunderstood. Nevertheless, it is commendable that the author generally varied his usage of simple, compound and complex sentences as well as utilized varying sentence length to be effectively understood. The essays organization is rather clear. It has been structured into the introduction, followed by arguments and conclusion; thus, lacking the counter-argument which a good argumentative essay should possess.
It is generally easy to identify the topic of each paragraph, except paragraph 5, despite the lack of clear topic sentences; however, it would be recommended that the topic sentence is introduced at the beginning of each paragraph for a better grasp of the paragraph’s main idea. A closer look at the paragraphs’ topic revealed that paragraph 5 should have been placed after paragraph 2 since both are along the lines of disrupting the concept of “the balance of nature”. This will allow for better coherence. Additionally, transition phrases were also used to gain coherence throughout the essay.
In conclusion, the evaluation of the essay in the 3 areas (namely, content, language and organization) revealed certain weaknesses of the essay. The content is unsuccessful in conveying its purpose to the audience while inappropriate language usage resulted in noise and an informal tone, which is uncharacteristic of an academic writing. Lastly, the organization of the essay provided some merits but the overall essay unity was not achieved. Hence, the essay is a piece of ineffective academic writing to a large extent but can be improved on if the above points are taken into consideration.