AWA 4


Science may be on the threshold of greatly extending the human life span to 100 years or more. If all causes of biological aging are discovered and cured, people eventually may have an indefinite life span extending for many centuries.

Discuss how logically persuasive you find the above argument. In presenting your point of view, analyze the sort of reasoning used and its supporting evidence. In addition, state what further evidence, if any, would make the argument more sound and convincing or would make you better able to evaluate its conclusion.

The author’s argument is unconvincing because his conclusion depends on several unsubstantiated assumptions. Each of the following areas merit further explanation before the author can be given any degree of credibility.

Firstly, the whole argument is based on a single most powerful assumption that Science is at the threshold of achieving the near-possible immortality. But there is hardly any evidence given to prove the stand or as to how far the developments has actually taken place on which this prediction has been done.

Secondly, with the constant controversies around the research of the biological aging features like stem cell, cloning, etc., the possibility of the successful completion of any of them is questionable. For example, in a recent observation it was found that the animals on which the experiments are tested on, are different than the animals from their natural habitat. Such incidents always brings a question on the credibility of the outcome of such scientific researches.

Thirdly, supposing that Science could find and cure all the cause of the biological happening, then there is no gurantee of the indefinite life span of the human beings especially with simultaneous discoveries of new diseases like Bird Flu and so on. Additionally, the frequent natural calamities and accidents as that of wars, road accidents can hardly ensure that every human being will have an indefinite life span.

Last but not the least, questioning the natural process and controlling it could backfire the whole mankind severely as observed in the cases of mindless expansion of industrial growth at the expense of nature, that resulted in frequent tornadoes, floods, global warming and so on.

Due to the many holes in the reasoning of the author’s argument, it is difficult to take him seriously. Unless further evidence surface in each of the areas discussed above, the given premises are insufficient proof that the conclusion drawn is viable.

Leave a Reply