Critical Evaluation of Jeremy Rifkin’s Choose Least Harmful Biotech Options
Write a critical essay (of approximately 1,200 words) that analyses and evaluates one of the extended passages below, drawing on the explanations and instructions in Unit 10. Your essay should demonstrate your understanding of how to identify and evaluate arguments according to your learning in Units 1–5, and it should demonstrate a specific method of analysis from Units 6–9.
Choose one of the following:
- Jeremy Rifkin. “Choose Least Harmful Biotech Options.” In Critical Reasoning. Page 334.
- Associated Press. “Study Links Homicide with TV Use.” In Critical Reasoning. Pages 250–251.
- John R. Lott, Jr. “Stop Subsidizing the Future Rich.” In Critical Reasoning. Pages 331–332.
Your essay should have a brief introduction and conclusion where you state the thesis that you will argue. An example of a thesis for a critical essay would be: “The author makes an empirical argument that legalizing drugs will not increase social problems, but he (a) commits the slippery slope fallacy, (b) cherry picks statistics, and (c) uses an invalid syllogism.”
With a thesis like this, you can then structure your essay (each of the three points relates to a paragraph):
Paragraph 1: Brief introduction and thesis. (2–3 sentences)
Paragraph 2: Bare bones summary of author’s argument as a whole. (3–4 sentences)
Paragraph 3: Extract a specific sub-argument and subject it to a method of critical analysis. (4–5 sentences
Paragraph 4: Extract a specific sub-argument and subject it to a method of critical analysis. (4–5 sentences)
Paragraph 5: Extract a specific sub-argument and subject it to a method of critical analysis. (4–5 sentences)
Paragraph 6: Conclusion: Wrap up and conclude. Restate your thesis. (2–3 sentences)
Important tips
You should build your body paragraphs first, then add the rest once you have chosen the specific techniques of evaluation you determine to be best for the passage.
You need to go beyond identifying and labelling an issue with the author’s argument and state why it is an issue. Don’t just say the author commits the fallacy of slippery slope: explain what the fallacy is, how they commit it, what is wrong with it, and whether their argument can be improved.
You can use diagrams or mapping in Paragraphs 3–5, depending on how you choose to demonstrate your learning.
Each of the assigned passages are of different lengths. You need to grasp and understand the whole passage, but you only need to deal with three smaller arguments in your essay.
You should use an in-text citation style that uses page numbers. When you are referring to a specific part of an argument from the author, use an in-text citation. MLA is going to be best for this purpose.
Above were the instructions given to me by the teacher to write the essay. I am attaching in files the images to the pages were the three passages are found. Please pick one of them for the essay. I am also attaching units 6-10 in case you need to look for the method of analyzing. It is talked more in unit 9.
Please reach out to me if you have any other questions. Thank you very much.
Professor
Course
Date
Critical Evaluation of Jeremy Rifkin’s Choose Least Harmful Biotech Options
Introduction
In his article “Choose Least Harmful Biotech Option,” Jeremy Rifkin argues about the best means of using modern biotechnological development for the betterment of humans. Rifkin uses conceptual theory to explain the nature and significance of biotechnology in the next century without using empirical facts and relying on the slippery slope fallacy and vagure generalization. Thus, Jeremy Rifkin’s argument is based on a non-deductive fallacy and needs substantial empirical evidence and clarity regarding the best option for the future.
Discussion
Jeremy begins this article by regarding the discovery of nuclear fission and human genetic codes as the most eventful developments of the twenty-first century. By claiming that biotechnology will be the core determinant of human development in the twenty-first century, he debates the implications of biotechnology in two different domains: genetic engineering to play with human and animal genomes and using this technology to improve the environment and resolve issues of public health. To make a clear argument about utilizing biotechnology advancement for future and present generations, Jeremy discusses two options: the development of transgenic organisms and improvement in the environment and public health. Admitting his incapability to stay clear about the potential uses of biotechnology, Jeremey stresses the need to be divergent regarding the possible options and keep the level of human harm to a minimum.
Jeremy argues that nuclear fission is the preceding century’s leading technological and scientific development, and biotechnology and genetic engineering are modern scientific developments that shape human societies’ future (Rifkin 234). This argument is not substantial as it is based on the conceptual theory that entails making statements regarding the nature of a subject without explaining the reason (Imenda 186). Thus, Jeremy categorically predicts the dominance of biotechnology in the future without providing substantial logical and statistical grounds for this claim. This argument needs to provide more empirical evidence to explain why biotechnology will dominate the future world, and this feature deteriorates this argument’s validity.
Je...