Standard form:

P1. Organ transplantation is one of the chief glories of modern medicine.

P2. It's a miracle tragically out of reach for many thousands of people whose lives might be
saved. 
P3. There just aren't enough organs to go around. 

P4. Thousands of people die each year waiting for kidney transplants more still become too
sick to receive a transplant. 

P5. Selling a kidney doesn't really impoverish the donor's quality of life.

P6. People can live normal lives with only one kidney

P7. There is no evidence that donating a kidney decrease the donor's life expectancy.

P8. We already allow people to sell their sperm and eggs. Why not their kidneys too?
Therefore

P9. If donating a kidney does no harm,

Then

C: It is unreasonably paternalistic to prohibit people from selling a kidney if they want to. 

Concept Map:
 Evaluation of the Argument:

If donating a kidney does no harm then, it is unreasonably paternalistic to prohibit people from

selling a kidney if they want to. The conclusion is not clearly stated. The argument is not

sound. The premises provide multiple reasons to support the argument, but the argument is

invalid. There are three issues with the supporting premises that invalidate the conclusion.

The first problem is that the argument uses the assumption to support the

conclusion rather than providing facts. In support of the writer’s argument to legalise the

sale of kidneys, it states that people selling kidneys do not impoverish the donor’s life and

that there is no evidence on kidney donations reducing the donor’s life expectancy. The

problem with this argument is that there are no facts to support the claim. Lack of evidence

does not necessarily mean no evidence unless you support that argument with statistical

facts. There are probabilities showing that doctors conducting transplants are never 100%

safe, and several complications that arise from post-surgical processes require medications.
Therefore, to support the conclusion that donating a kidney is safe, the argument should

provide a life expectancy study that shows that a kidney transplant has limited to zero

probability of deteriorating a donor’s life.

The second problem is that the argument uses an irrelevant premise to support the

argument. The argument states that because people can sell sperm and eggs, they should

also have the liberty to sell kidneys. The author fails to realize that the human body

produces eggs and sperms naturally and are replenishable, which is not in the case with

kidneys. Furthermore, donating sperm requires no medical procedure because it is a natural

biological process, unlike the case with kidney transplants. Donating sperm and eggs is not a

matter of life and death when compared to a kidney transplant. Therefore, this is a weak

argument.

The third premise needs to be more specific to kidneys and should focus on kidneys

rather than all organs. Therefore, this is a weak argument.

The Argument can be strengthened if it provides explanation for the following:

 how many patients are on the waiting list of kidney transplants every day in an

average hospital in a city, state, or country?

 How many patients reject their new kidneys post-surgery?

 What is the frequency of kidney transplants in comparison to lungs, hearts, liver

and other organ transplants?

 What is the death rate in various organ failures to convince us that kidneys are

an organ to pay much attention to in comparison to other organs when it comes

to transplants?

 No. of surveys that show that people are/not willing to donate their organs.
 Statistics can also help to strengthen and validate the argument.