The purpose of the article: “In this essay, I will build a case for why Church’s de-extinction of the woolly mammoth is unethical and shouldn’t be practiced in the future”

Thesis: “I contend that there are two senses in which Church’s de-extinction plan is unethical; the first is a philosophical sense. Scholars of bioethics cite the inability to restore “intrinsic value” of a species and hubris as possible ethical arguments against de-extinction, and their conclusions would certainly apply to Church’s own de-extinction project. The second sense is practical.”

I can differentiate the authors ideas for the secondary sources because the secondary sources are used to help understand the authors ideas better.

5 pieces of evidence: 1)”Would raise a woolly mammoth, and poaching for their ivory tusks is another issue that many of these animals are sure to face.” 2)“The Ethics of De-Extinction”, Shlomo Cohen notes, “… If nature has intrinsic value, this value must entail independence (autonomy) from human purpose, activity, and interest. Humans cannot restore natural intrinsic value, since all restoration is, qua human creation, artifactual—the precise antonym of the natural.” 3) “The Ethics of Reviving Long Lost Species” notes that whether or not a de-extinction project might be hubris depends on its intentions.” 4)  “… it is pursued as a tool to help design ecological systems as we would want them to be…” or to “… assuage our guilt without adequate respect for the value of nature…” 5) “… the mammoth was not simply a set of genes, it was a social animal, as is the modern Asian elephant. What will happen when the elephant-mammoth hybrid is born? How will it be greeted by elephants?”

The author didn’t plagiarism any information because all the information was cited from the direct source. That is how I can properly source information for my ideas in my argumentative writing.

I can format my citations by using MLA.