Genetic Argument Analysis

The form in this editorial follows the common conventions of an article found in the “Opinion” and “Comment” section of a newspaper’s website or journal. The purpose of using the editorial, as opposed to other forms was to express how emotive I felt about gene therapy being readily used by couples for conditions other than genetic disorders. This was preferable to other mediums, as I was able to use emotive language and logic at the same time, whilst presenting my argument.
Moreover, the use of a metaphor in the title succinctly summarises the main argument that genetic testing provides no benefits to society. The repetition of “epidemic” in the title and main body also conveyed that manipulative genealogy is a growing into a serious issue, especially as “everyone” in society is inevitably affected by their genes in one way or another. More importantly, the

In contradiction, the intended audience are also couples who may have conceived or plan to conceive a child with a potential genetic disorder. This is indicated by inclusive language such as, “Is it ethically right to kill your own child?” and by attacking Australian couples who want to conceive a “normal child”.
As mentioned previously, I aimed to introduce and sustain an authoritative tone. However, this eventually changed into a logical tone, as statistics such as “98% higher for potential suffers” and expert opinion from the NIH, a scientist community which made the article more objective. In contrast, sarcasm was subtly used in “Tony Abbot and 100 ‘intelligent’ people” to invoke a light-hearted and comical tone. This therefore showed that even though the government may not necessarily make the right decisions, they still have some authority and experience to tackle issues in