Weigh the claims on both sides, and then write an argumentative essay about whether animals should be cloned or not and why.

Be sure to use evidence from BOTH texts in your argumentative essay. Write your answer in the space provided.

Before you write, be sure to:

• think about ideas, facts, definitions, details, and other information and examples you want to use;
• think about how you will introduce your topic and what the main topic will be for each paragraph;
• develop your ideas clearly and use your own words, except when quoting directly from the source texts; and
• be sure to identify the sources by title or number when using details or facts directly from the sources.

Now write your argumentative essay in the space provided. Be sure to:

• introduce your claim;
• support your claim with logical reasoning and relevant evidence from the texts;
• acknowledge and address alternate or opposing claims;
• organize the reasons and evidence logically;
• use words, phrases, and clauses to connect your ideas and to clarify the relationships among claims, counterclaims, reasons, and evidence;
• establish and maintain a formal style;
• provide a concluding statement or section that follows from and supports the argument presented; and
• check your work for correct grammar, usage, capitalization, spelling, and punctuation.
PASSAGE 1: The Dangerous Side of Cloning Animals
By Phillip Jones
PASSAGE 2: Lower the Greenhouse Effect: Clone Mammoths
By Samuel Viler
PLEASE READ JUST NEED 2 PARAGAPHS LIKE 3 SENTENCES EACH AT THE MOST I DONT NEED REALLY LONG KEEP IT SHORT AND SWEET AND MAKE SURE TO USE EVIDENCE

1 answer

The debate over animal cloning presents compelling arguments on both sides, but ultimately, the potential benefits outweigh the ethical concerns. In "The Dangerous Side of Cloning Animals," Phillip Jones highlights the risks associated with cloning, such as health abnormalities and the high failure rates in cloned animals. However, Samuel Viler's "Lower the Greenhouse Effect: Clone Mammoths" argues for the ecological benefits of cloning, such as reviving extinct species to restore ecosystems and combat climate change. Cloning, if conducted responsibly, could not only enhance biodiversity but also play a crucial role in environmental restoration.

While concerns about animal welfare and the moral implications of cloning are valid, these issues can be addressed through rigorous ethical standards and regulations. Jones raises significant points about the health risks that cloned animals may face, yet Viler demonstrates that targeted cloning efforts, like those aimed at resurrecting mammoths, could provide ecological benefits that far enhance our planet’s sustainability. This suggests that cloning, when used for specific and purposeful goals, can lead to advancements that promote both biodiversity and environmental health, making a strong case for its cautious adoption.