Thanks for the question! First things first, (A) is not the correct answer, (D) is. So let’s take a look at what this argument is telling us, and how (D) is the answer. The ethicist says that some people would ban cloning because clones would be sub-people. But the ethicist comes up with a counterexample. In general, the ethicist says, It’s not illegal to use one person as a vehicle for the ambitions of another. The ethicist points to examples of parents pushing their children in academics or athletics, and is basically arguing that those are also cases in which you’re extensions of someone else’s ego. This is an argument by analogy. And what’s the conclusion that the ethicist is trying to show? Well, that those people who would ban cloning on those grounds are probably mistaken.
Now we’re being asked for how the assertion that “it’s not illegal to use one person as a vehicle for another’s ambitions” is being used in the ethicist’s argument. So remember, I said that this statement was basically a premise that’s being used to support the end conclusion that people who would ban cloning for that reason aren’t necessarily correct. And that’s what (D) tells us, that vanity’s being the motivation for cloning isn’t enough of a reason to ban it. If we should ban it, there’s other reasons, and not the view of the “some people” mentioned at the beginning of the passage.
(C) is also incorrect, since it’s not true that saying that “clones aren’t sub-people” (kind of a general principle about a certain class of thing) implies that “it’s not illegal to use one person as a vehicle for the ambitions of another” (a statement about what the law is).
Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.
