The essay aims to persuade the audience (i.e. tutor) against human cloning and
expresses the author’s lack of competency in presenting his arguments. Based on the channel
chosen to convey his message, the essay is, to a large extent, an ineffective piece of academic
writing upon evaluation of its content, language and organization of arguments. This essay
critique analyses and evaluates the above points.
One of the essay problems includes the poorly developed thesis statement at the end
of the 1st paragraph. The thesis statement did not provide a prelude of the specific arguments
that are in the essay. 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 Toulmin-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 Adolf 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 cloning 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 essay’s main problems stems from the red herring fallacy. In paragraph 6,
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 “I” and
“My”. Secondly, certain sentences, like “I think...”, are in the active voice. Thirdly, several
contractions (i.e. I’d, 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”...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document