Reflection of Commerce in Cadavers an Open Secret - Essay Example

The author finally concludes that the government has to clarify its role in the handling and management of activities involving human body parts, and that it is actually left with basically two choices: to redefine the laws that govern donation of body parts or to enforce strict standards and regulations governing the selling of body parts. The Structure of the Main Argument The argument is a deductive argument which is anchored on the claim that “an underground illegal market has developed largely because of inconsistent federal policies and practices” (Goodwin).

This type of deductive argument is an example of Hypothetical Syllogism. The arguments or premises that support this conclusion are mainly examples of effects that are brought about by such inconsistencies in government policies regarding the handling and management of body parts. In standard form, it would look like this: P1: Inconsistent federal practices and policies give a chance for those engaged in the illegal selling of body parts to conduct their businesses smoothly. . r industry” is not substantiated by concrete evidence and may even be simply just a way to exaggerate the nature of this commercial exchange of body parts.

Moreover, the statement “fees have come to resemble illegal payments” does not take into consideration that not all fees and not all institutions are involved in the use of illegal payments. The Article’s Use of Language The article is definitely value-laden as it is negatively biased against the government and its inefficiency in imposing its laws concerning the handling and management of human body parts. This is evident in the obvious distaste with which the author treats the government.

In fact, the author uses a demeaning phrase pertaining to the fees that government laws unreasonably allow so that the illegal commercial selling of body parts would continue: “those fees have come to resemble illegal payments” (Goodwin). Moreover, the prejudice of the author against the government is also evident in the phrases that express his accusations against them: “inconsistent federal policies and practices,” “poor oversight,” and “lax at best” to describe federal oversight (Goodwin).

These are the unique characteristics of the language that the author uses to push the reader towards accepting his conclusions. Nevertheless, the language that the author uses is straightforward and not overly intellectual, and this is another reason why it appeals to the ordinary reader. The Article’s Strengths The article uses good and persuasive data to convince the readers of the inefficiency of government laws, although this information is not detailed perhaps to intentionally obscure the issue.

The author has been stating unreasonable generalizations against the government since she mentions “inconsistent