Bringing Them Back to Life, an article written by Carl Zimmer for the April 2013 edition of National Geographic, discusses the possibilities of modern science to clone and revive species that have been driven to extinction in the last ten thousand years (445). In this article, the author makes use of the rhetorical devices logos, ethos, and pathos to argue before the audience that humans have an obligation to revive species that have been driven to extinction directly due to human influence. Although the author acknowledges the benefits of species revival and attempts to refute his own arguments, the author's use of errors detracts from the article's credibility. The role of ethics in the modern revival of genetic species is a debatable topic that takes different positions depending on the author's audience. In this piece, the author's primary audience would be people who share the belief that it is ethical to revive such species. These individuals may include scientists, environmentalists, and/or government officials due to their direct correlation to efforts similar to those described by the author. While there are people who share the author's beliefs, the secondary audience for this piece would include those who disagree with the author's statement. People such as scientists and government officials may also fall into this category, as they may not agree with the author's statement. As a tertiary audience, the general public could be considered due to their agreement, disagreement, or neutrality on the author's statement that it is the ethical responsibility of humans to revive species that have become extinct directly due to human influence. Supporting his claim that humans have an obligation to review…half of the paper…the author's established credibility through the use of ethics. Through the use of appeals to logos, ethos, and pathos, the author attempts to support his claim that humans have an obligation to revive species that have been driven to extinction directly because of human influence. Although the author demonstrates his credibility to the audience in accordance with his claim, the use of fallacies within his arguments demonstrates that the article lacks credibility. Therefore, the argument that humans have an obligation to revive species that have been driven to extinction directly due to human influence is ineffective and is not a credible argument. Works Cited Zimmer, Carl. "Bring them back to life." Good reasons with contemporary arguments. 6th ed. Ed. Lester Faigley and Jack Selzer. San Francisco: Pearson, 2014. 445-451. Pearson e-text. Network. February 5. 2014.