The first sentence is long but it introduces the argument that I am, allegedly, going to fight throughout the rest of the article, that cloning has been accomplished and that we should embrace this opportunity and use it fully. The first word in the article is “Finally”, this indicates that we have been waiting a long time for this to happen, and that we shouldn’t have to wait any longer.
By using such language as “unbelievers” I straight away put down the other side of the argument, making it seem like they want to hold us back from this radiant future. By using the phrase “everything we have ever dreamed of” I bring the reader into the article, and make them start to think that this isn’t just what I want, it is what they want as well. This makes them become more persuaded to my side of the argument.
I draw them in more by using the words “you and i as members of the master race”. The master race sounds like something that it is enjoyable to be a part of and the reader will feel pleased that they have been chosen to be in the master race, even though this applies to everyone. The conflicting words “relax” and “toil” show the difference between the master race and the workers, it should make the reader glad to be resting and not laboring away under ground.
The contrast of just the names is significant the “master race” sounds very noble and majestic, almost royal, whereas the “worker race” sounds inferior, like working class, and unpleasant. The “master race” is also described well to make it sounds more magnificent by using words such as “gifted” and “intelligence” to describe the people in this race, just the use of the word “master” makes the race more imposing, as if they can command everyone and rule over everybody else.
The public that don’t agree with cloning aren’t even given a name simply being referred to as “other people” and “unbelievers” making them even less dignified than the “worker race” which at least has a name and can be reconised. The use of a book that many of the readers of the newspaper, which is for a fairly intellectual audience, will have read makes the image seem more real in their heads and helps them to picture it, it also gives the idea some credibility, if such a famous book can be related to it then it must have some reasonable points.
By saying that ” we would be able to live in peace and harmony” and by using the story of young men going off to war I emotionally bring the reader onto my side in the argument, as many people have lost someone close to them because of war then they won’t want it to happen to anyone else, so they will agree with a motion that will stop this happening once and for all. It encourages even more emotion and sympathy by using the word “young”, as people will feel more for people who still had their whole lives in front of them compared to old men that were close to dying anyway.
By this point in the article many readers will be coming up with their own arguments against some of the points I have made, in their heads. The main one of these will be that it is immoral to force the workers to live underground and graft day and night, so I now introduce my argument against that point “if we have cloned them for this purpose they will never have experienced anything different” and by settling this qualm against the idea I again bring the reader back onto my side.
Many people are worried about unemployment and they disapprove with the way that unskilled people can scrounge of their hard-earned money that they pay as taxes. So I now bring this into the argument by asking a question ” why should we let people with no skills and no jobs hold back out world’s development? ” This answers itself, or the reader can answer it for himself or herself. I then use a three pronged attack “maximum intelligence, maximum potential and of maximum use to the economy” this flatters the reader, who has already been told that they are one of these people persuading them even more to see my side of the argument.
Again I use the idea that many people have experienced someone familiar to them dying or having a bad experience with an illness or a disease by pointing out that ” we could clone many gifted people who would help us discover cures for all of the illnesses mankind is stricken with. ” The people who have experienced this don’t want it to happen to them again, or it to happen to anyone else so if there is a way to stop it then they will agree with it.
I use the data that “over one quarter of the world’s population is Atheist”, making it seem that over one quarter of the world’s population agree with me, again convincing the reader that they should to. I make the point that “it can be done without harming anyone” which may have been worrying some people. I then, again, make it out that the people on the other side of the argument are the villains by implying that they are saying that they want to live in “a world full of poverty, starvation and disease”. This list of three contains three highly negative words; by using this powerful device I make the opposition seem even more corrupt.
I then go on to talk about what the world would be like without cloning ” we will slowly and surely carry on destroying the planet. ” Nobody wants this to happen as everybody hopes for the world to be a better place for the future generations of his or her family, not worse. I close the argument by stating “it could stop us from the many fears and disasters that await us in the future if we decide to not to agree with cloning. ” I use this because it is a strong ending, playing on the readers’ fears of their children having to live in a terrible world.