WPA Outcome Logical Argument Reflection

Rhetorical Knowledge
When writing my logical argument on the negative effects of Genetically Modified Babies, I had
to comprehend the different view points that various scientists posed when talking of the social
and ethical outcomes that these perfect children could create in society. Based off these
scientists ideas, I was able to compose a justified basis that reiterated why parents should not
have the opportunity to enhance their childs genome in order to get ahead of society; because it
could ultimately destroy man kind later on. By doing this, I, learned and used key rhetorical
concepts through analyzing and composing a variety of texts, (WPA Outcomes Statement for
First-Year Composition). After thoroughly researching the topic on the internet, through books
and by mass media, I found that each resource not only held different information, but also
different perspectives of the over all idea. This helped me carefully construct an argument that
could not be countered against. For example, in my argument I stated:
Some people may argue that Gene Therapy is just a less improved version of
Genetic Engineering and that it was where the idea of Genetic Modification came from.
In fact, scientists say that since we have been conducting Gene Therapy on people for
years, we should have the right to genetically modify children for the people who can and
want to pay for it. The difference between the two, that most people dont realize, is that
Gene Therapy is not used through random decision. In fact, it is used, in order to treat
diseases in a single patient, rather than in all their descendants (Human Genetics Alert
- The Threat of Human Genetic Engineering), because genes are used to treat and
prevent chronic diseases that will cause the fetus to suffer when born or as they grow
up.
This quotation exemplifies how I was able to compose information that could not be countered
against by showing that I analyzed several facts and was able to bring them together as a whole.
As a result, my product showed that Gene Therapy isnt in fact the same as Genetic Modification
and, from that, scientists are wrong to think that just because we conduct Gene Therapy now,
doesnt make it right to conduct Genetic Modification on children of the future. As a result,
without critically analyzing my sources, I would not have fully established an understanding of
each scientists purpose and how they viewed the context of Genetically Modified Babies. So in
the end, the different perspectives from these sources allowed me to see all the positive and
negatives of Genetically Modified Babies which helped me compose an argument fixated for one
side, that also held information from the opposing side, so that the audience reading my paper
could not find ways to go against my solid view point when it comes to the advancement of
children.

Critical Thinking, Reading, and Composing

As I gathered sources for my Logical Argument, pertaining to Genetically Modified Babies, I
had to analyze, synthesize, interpret and evaluate the numerous ideas, information, situations,
and texts of each individual source that I found. This was completed in order to help me identify
how I would use sources to back up my over all claim against scientists having the ability to

enhance the genome of babies of the future. As a result, I was able to evaluate underlying
assumptions from various scientists when it came to the controversial topic and how they felt the
outcome of these babies would change society. This caused me to see several patterns in all the
sources as a whole, which allowed me to construct an argument that held different view points
and chains of reasoning that played off one another. The outcome resulted my audience to see the
negative effects that Genetically Modified Babies would have on the ethical and moral standards
in society. By doing this I had to, read a diverse range of texts, attending especially to
relationships between assertion and evidence, to patterns of organization, to the interplay
between verbal and nonverbal elements, and to how these features function for different
audiences and situations, (WPA Outcomes Statement for First-Year Composition). For example,
in my argument I stated:
Approximately 4 million babies are born each year. About 3-4% will be born with a genetic
disease or major birth defects resulting from genetic heredity (Net Wellness). Scientist believe
they can make this outcome of genetic mishaps down to 0% with the use of Genetic
Modification. Some even say, that since we have the technology and power to take this
Genetic Engineering into our own hands, we would be stupid not to at least just try it
out, (Prohibit Genetic Engineered Babies). However, trying it out, with no ideal
outcome can create a mess society could possible not be able to fix. Such as a permanent
mutation, or an indestructible being.

My statement effectively shows that I used facts from sources that related to my topic. Then
distributed the accumulative thought that scientists think when it comes to Genetic Modification,
but instead of supporting their thinking, I used my skills of critical thinking to counter act against
the scientists statement. This way I am using a different perspective that the scientists didnt
consider, to go against their argument of trying to get society to reform to Genetic Modification
in babies. So from the diverse range of research I conducted I was able to see patterns in several
sources of information, draw outcomes, and create different situations to expose the negative
sides of modifying babies in society.

Processes
I used the seldom linear processes to construct a well rounded argument over Genetically
Modified Babies in order to get my audience to see the negative effects of having scientist gain
the right to enhance the genome of babies in the families that can afford it. For each source, I
thoroughly analyzed its content, highlighted what facts or information from the source that can
be used with in my argument, and then constructed an Annotated Bibliography which explained
how I would use that source within my argument and the outcome it would bring. My argument,
once constructed, was then peer viewed by an outside contact. By doing this I was able to,
reflect on the development of composing practices and how those practices influence their
work, and, experience the collaborative and social aspects of writing processes. (WPA
Outcomes Statement for First-Year Composition). This allowed me to make sure I held all pieces
of an argument to win over my audience and to get my point across effectively and
straightforward. For example, in my argument I stated:
Scientists have become blind to the negative aspects of CRISPR-Cas9 by refusing to
notice that the manufacturing of these babies can create children to be treated as

objects instead of real people. When in reality, children should get the chance to be who
they want to be without having to carry the burden of their parents' genetically mediated
expectations, (Babies by Design). When the outcome causes a child to change the way
they think of themselves, this generates ethical assumptions of whether a child created
from a petri dish using donor gametes will have a sense of worth or moral standing if
they knew that they werent, in fact, the person that they were suppose to be before they
were modified by their parents.
The quotation from my argument showed that I analytically went through my sources in order to
incorporate them into the view point I was taking, so I could back up my statements with facts
from real scientist who are under going this race for perfect children. I generated my aspect of
Genetically Modified Babies with facts, and research to not only win my audience over, but to
reveal the moral and ethical outcomes that most people, including scientists, dont see if these
genetically modified babies become a continuous thing in the future.

Knowledge of Conventions
The argument against the creation of Genetically Modified Babies shaped my perception of
correctness and appropriateness. I had to design an argument that not only took my view point of
things, but also held all angles in which no counter argument could act against. That being said, I
have to hit all main points and ideas when it comes to the moral and ethical standpoints in
society that this creation of perfect human beings can cause. I took what a multitude of ideas
stated by scientists individually and incorporated their knowledge into my argument to show that
I can, apply citations conventions systematically in my own work, (WPA Outcomes Statement
for First-Year Composition). With that being said my information held effective analysis and
held a firm grasp on my idea without getting off topic. The responses to the information I
integrated held justification which showed my intellectual standings. For instance, I stated in my
argument:
The Evolution of Humans has spanned about 2 million years and has resulted in the
types of people we see today: people who have imperfections and people who are very
different from one another, (Orion Magazine). Evolution has played a huge role in the
creation of man kind. Even the human race has greatly evolved and developed
adaptations over time to be accustomed to different lifestyles and environments. When the
environment changes, the individuals of that environment that are best suited are the ones
that survive and reproduce
This example showed that I not only know how to include citations in my work to explain what I
am trying to fully get across to my audience, but also my ability to use correct linguistic
structure. This includes grammar, punctuation, and spelling. It not only is about the material
given in the argument, but how that material is used. In this case, my argument held everything
in order for my reader to understand my overall claim from formal citations to correct
conventions.