The ethicist's conclusion is: "You do not have to have been born in a test tube to be an extension of someone else's ego." Why? Because even though "some would ban cloning on the grounds that clones would be sub-people," it is not against the law "to use one person as a vehicle for the ambitions of another." The ethicist gives an example of this by adding that "some people push their children to achieve in academics or athletics."
We are asked to describe how the ethicist's assertion (i.e. it is not illegal to use one person as a vehicle for another's ambition) furthers her argument. This assertion is set forth as a premise explaining why those who think cloning should be banned because the clones would exist to indulge the vanity of their "originals," is not a sufficient reason to actually ban cloning. The assertion provides a legal example where people use others as a vehicle for their ambitions. Thus, answer choice (D), "It supports the ethicist's view that vanity's being the motivation for cloning is not enough of a reason to ban cloning," is correct.
Let's break down answer choice (E). Though the ethicist's assertion is describing a legal position--that one person uses another as a vehicle for their ambitions, e.g. people pushing their children to achieve in academic or athletics--the ethicist is not arguing that it should be changed. She is using this "legal position" as an example to show that just because some people think clones would exist to indulge the vanity of their "original," that is not enough reason to ban cloning.
Hope that was helpful! Please let us know if you have any other questions.
