Having all the history in our papers can definitely help to convince or persuade later. History adds the strait facts in the paper, which gives credibility to the writer, which will appeal more to the reader. I think it is going to be somewhat hard to merge the history and convincing all together. To really convince though, I believe the writer has to include history of the subject to familiarize the reader with the whole background of the subject.
“Late last year, around 60 national academies of science from around the world called for a global ban on reproductive cloning, but said researchers should be free to experiment, as the Korean team did, with therapeutic cloning.”
“Researchers say there are many reasons why South Koreans -- and not Americans -- were standing at the podium Thursday at the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting in Seattle, not the least of which is the support of the federal government.”
This transitionary paragraph gives recent legal type history of therapeutic cloning and then adds a viewpoint on why history played out the way it did. It also made a conclusion from the history of Americans and Koreans to what is currently happening in both places today and why they are the way they are (government support).
I liked how the writer tied in the history to the controversial side he was arguing. I wish it was structured a little better or flowed better between the two paragraphs. I did not feel like there was enough history behind the author’s argument of government support in this case.