What is the main point the author makes about the 'slope' argument?
As genetic screening of embryos becomes cheaper, the debate moves from whether to screen for serious inherited disease, where there is wide agreement, to whether to screen for traits such as height or intelligence. Critics see a slope: first disease, then disability, then preference. But slopes are not inevitable. Societies regularly distinguish between prevention of grave suffering and enhancement, as they do in medicine generally; we operate on a broken leg but do not generally lengthen healthy ones. The better worry about screening for traits is not the slope but the inequality: a technology available mainly to the wealthy could pass advantages from one generation to the next. That is a reason for regulation and public funding, not necessarily prohibition.
Answer and explanation
Correct answer: B. Slippery slopes can be avoided by drawing sensible distinctions in policy
- Step 1: The author says slopes are not inevitable and cites the line societies draw between prevention and enhancement.
- Step 2: So distinctions can hold the line.
Answer
Slippery slopes can be avoided by drawing sensible distinctions in policy.
Why not the others: The author rejects inevitability, does not call the argument correct, separates disease from traits, and gives medicine as an example of the distinction.
Practise more Genetics.
Free questions with an explanation for every one, and full timed LNAT mock tests.