2. The article starts off against the idea of selling organs but slowly sells the reader on the idea by the argument that a legal trade would be more ethical than an illegal one. A lesser of 2 evils. 

3. The intended audience seems to be people in the EU that might influence votes on the matter because the text refers to the Eu multiple times. I don’t believe it is addressing politicians directly due to the use of informal tone. 

4. The rhetorical appeals used were mostly pathos and logos as it dives into how people feel on their deathbed that would cause them to turn to illegal means, and backs it up with statistics such as the prices people are willing to pay, mortality rates of the surgeries, and amount of people each year unlikely to be able to receive organs due to the shortage. I see this as effective because it makes the issue seem more human and less clear cut. Selling organs might seem bad but can help people in the direst of situations. 

5. The source helps clarify the topic by expressing many points as to why each side could have their opinion, tackling the counterargument that the sale of organs would be bad from the very beginning. 

6. Some weakness and defect in the source come from how it does not use many statistics in the second half and how the author does not fully explain all of their points in the second half such as how “The man trying to support his family by selling a kidney is not so very different from one who puts in shifts down a mine or risks his life as a deep-sea fisherman.”  

7. This source will be useful in getting statistics for organ transplants and patients in the EU. 

2. The article expresses its point using personal accounts from people who have been affected negatively by the organ trade. 

3. The intended audience is likely people in poorer countries such as Bangladesh, where the article is from, as it does not address possible change in policy much and instead discusses person effects which could discourage people from partaking in the risky practice. 

4. The rhetorical appeal is mostly ethos and logos as it uses the testament of people, ethos, and the feelings of those people, pathos. 

5. The source helps clarify the topic by giving an inside perspective of the issue instead of the more common looking in viewpoint, as most people are not affected by the illegal sale of organs. 

6. The source acquires some bias from following the perspective of The Detective Branch of Police at times, which are going to be against anything illegal as it is their job. 

7. This source will be useful because it will allow me to bring in multiple perspectives to vouch for my argument, which should add credibility and variety. 

2. The article argues that the body is special and not just a sum of its parts. Death is a beautiful part of life that does not need to be fixed. 

3. The intended audience seems to be people outside of the medical field or politics as no laws are discussed much more than a mention. 

4. The rhetorical appeal is pathos as no statistics or accounts from important people are given. It explains its message through moral ideas. 

5. The source complicates the topic by adding in an element of opinion. Whether death is a “problem to be solved” or not is not an objective issue. 

6. The author has the bias of being influenced by certain religious beliefs, which is evident by multiple entries in the “Book” section being about religion. 

7. This source is not the most relevant and useful for the topic as it has little to no hard evidence to support its claim. If I were to use arguments like it, it would be unlikely to change the opinions of people that are more set on one side of the discussion. 

2. The article describes how the legal system of the sale of organs could be exploited and brings up the issue that anyone could sell their body parts, poor or rich, but only the rich could buy body parts. 

3. The intended audience seems to be people in the field of medicine, ethics, and law because it has a formal tone throughout and the author is the founder of an institution of these subjects. 

4. The rhetorical appeals used most are pathos and logos because most points stated are a dissection of morality on the issue but are supported with numbers such as the price of sold organs. 

5. The source helps clarify the topic by further explaining that even if people give consent to donating their organs it is still exploitation in many cases and can lead to further inequalities. 

6. This source seems unbiased, but the author could be influenced to support the tamer side of the argument on the sale of human organs to be seen as more respected in the academic field. 

7. This source will help me bring more credibility to my point of view as it is supported by professionals, and it will be useful in explaining how the legal sale of organs takes advantage of poor people and would only benefit the rich. I can also use it to develop a supporting paragraph that argues the sale of organs might not help end the shortage as much as someone would think because the declining health of donors could lead them to eventually need a transplant as well.