Yes, Don't Impede Medical Progress

1. What is the thesis statement that the author is trying to support? Why does she place it where she does?
- The thesis statement in this paper is not very clear to me. But I believe it is in paragraph 2 where she states, "Scientists....effective." It is in the 2nd introduction paragraph so you know which side she supports immediately.


2. How does the author connect her argument to the broader issues of scientific progress? What is her implicit argument? How effective is this argument?
- She connects it by implementing genetic engineering and gene selection into her essay. Her argument is that everyone needs to just let scientists do their jobs and don't interfere. It is a very strong argument because she supports it by refuting the opposing argument.


3. The author dedicates a significant amount of the article to answering the objections of critics. Why is is this strategy important? What are the main arguments she answers? What argumentative strategies does she employ to answer those critics?
- It is important because it explains not only why your opinion is right, but also why the opposing argument is wrong. She answers arguments for human rights, improper usage, and gene selection. She argues by using good reasoning.


4. The author uses the word fear though out the essay. How does she use this word and what place does it have in her overall argument?
- She uses it first by saying that politics feeds on it. They make laws so people will fear to do whatever they want. She also says the legislation fears cloning because of "embryo farming." It shows how strongly both sides of the argument feel about the other.


5. In her conclusion, Postrel does not address her main topic of cloning at all. What might be the reason for this strategy? What effect does this have? Is this argument tactic legitimate?
- I don't like this strategy. At the end of the paper, the reader is left not thinking about the main topic, but about other topics. She might have tried to use this strategy get the reader thinking about how far science has come.