Could anyone please help me with the conclusion of this argument?
At first, I thought the ethicist's conclusion is the second sentence. But the correct answer choice seems to imply that the ethicist' point is "it's not enough to ban cloning on the ground of vanity" - which is not explicitly stated in the ethicist's argument?
does this mean sometime the argument's conclusion can be implicit?
3 posts • Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 2 guests