Question

Directions for sentence exclusion: Five sentences are given below; out of these, four come together to form a coherent paragraph, but one sentence does not fit into the sequence. Choose the sentence that does not fit into the sequence.

• A. The care with which philosophers examine arguments for and against forms of biotechnology makes this an excellent primer on formulating and assessing moral arguments.
• B. Although most people find at least some forms of genetic engineering disquieting, it is not easy to articulate why: what is wrong with re-engineering our nature?
• C. Breakthroughs in genetics present us with the promise that we will soon be able to prevent a host of debilitating diseases, and the predicament that our newfound genetic knowledge may enable us to enhance our genetic traits.
• D. To grapple with the ethics of enhancement, we need to confront questions that verge on theology, which is why modern philosophers and political theorists tend to shrink from them.
• E. One argument is that the drive for human perfection through genetics is objectionable as it represents a bid for mastery that fails to appreciate the gifts of human powers and achievements.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

To identify the sentence that disrupts the coherent flow of the paragraph, we will examine each statement sequentially.

1. Sentence 1: "Although most people find at least some forms of genetic engineering disquieting, it is not easy to articulate why: what is wrong with re-engineering our nature?"

This sentence establishes the prevalent unease surrounding genetic engineering and introduces the subsequent ethical inquiries.

1. Sentence 2: "Breakthroughs in genetics present us with the promise that we will soon be able to prevent a host of debilitating diseases, and the predicament that our newfound genetic knowledge may enable us to enhance our genetic traits."

This sentence outlines the contrasting outcomes of genetic advancements: disease prevention and trait enhancement, both significant ethical considerations.

1. Sentence 3: "To grapple with the ethics of enhancement, we need to confront questions that verge on theology, which is why modern philosophers and political theorists tend to shrink from them."

This sentence highlights the challenge of confronting the ethical dimensions of enhancement, connecting them to theological and philosophical complexities.

1. Sentence 4: "One argument is that the drive for human perfection through genetics is objectionable as it represents a bid for mastery that fails to appreciate the gifts of human powers and achievements."

This sentence presents a specific ethical objection to genetic enhancement, arguing against the pursuit of perfection as an overreach of control that disregards inherent human capabilities.

1. Sentence 5: "The care with which philosophers examine arguments for and against forms of biotechnology makes this an excellent primer on formulating and assessing moral arguments."

This sentence shifts focus to a general discussion on how philosophers analyze moral arguments concerning biotechnology, deviating from the specific topic of genetic enhancement.

Analysis:

• Sentence 1: Introduces general apprehension regarding genetic engineering.
• Sentence 2: Details the dual nature of genetic breakthroughs: disease prevention and enhancement.
• Sentence 3: Explains the theological and philosophical depth of ethical enhancement questions.
• Sentence 4: Articulates a specific ethical objection to genetic enhancement concerning human mastery.
• Sentence 5: Transitions to a general commentary on philosophical approaches to biotechnology ethics.

Conclusion:

Sentences 1 through 4 concentrate on the ethical implications and specific objections related to genetic engineering and enhancement. Sentence 5 diverges by discussing the broader philosophical methodology for evaluating biotechnology ethics, rather than engaging directly with the enhancement debate. Consequently, sentence 5 is the outlier.

The out-of-sequence sentence is:

"The care with which philosophers examine arguments for and against forms of biotechnology makes this an excellent primer on formulating and assessing moral arguments."