A secular argument against cloning is an opinion article written by David Sillers.

As it is proposed in the title, this article is about cloning and its implications. The main idea of the text is to present the problems that are implied when cloning human lives. So, the purpose of the author is to show his opposition to human cloning and to argument why cloning is wrong. His approach to the topic is an argumentative approach, where the author presents his personal thoughts about the topic. After the author discuses the implications of cloning, mainly moral ramifications, the author concludes that cloning is by almost all forms wrong and that the results of it could be devastating for society. Considering the structure of the text we can say that the author clearly identifies a problem and he leads the reader to the analysis of the issue until the end of the text. The opinion of the author is stated in the very first sentence of the text, so there is no doubt on what the hypothesis is. The author presents his own opinion on the topic and relates the issue to other contexts: scientific, political and social, etc. He states that cloning is wrong and he supports his opinion by explaining the implications of cloning in society. As it is an opinion article, the author communicates his own view on the topic. As I said before, from the very first sentence he presents his position and hypothesis and then, he justifies it. In general, we can say that the author does not consider other opinions on the topic so he fails to discuss others perspectives. Only in the last paragraph he integrates a contrary view on the issue of cloning, another proposed benefit of human cloning is that we would suddenly be able to solve the shortage of transplantable organs by simply cloning new ones, however I think he does it in a superficial way. From the text it is in some way evidenced that the author made a previous research on the topic, because he seems to be acquainted with what he is talking about. There is some evidence in the text, as when he mentions George W, Bush opinions and then when he refers to a person called Mr. Kimberly (although he does not explain who this person is and why his opinion is relevant). However, the author fails in presenting some appropriate data on the topic to support his own arguments. In the conclusion, the author re-states his opinion on the issue and presents the implications and consequences of cloning; they are well presented and clearly developed. Language clearly communicates the ideas. I would say that in general the text is well organized. However, when he presents the arguments, I think that in the third paragraph, the author fails in presenting some more arguments and it is evident because this paragraph is really short compared to the previous two.