The thesis seems to be reasonably well stated. It appears to be that organ trafficking is an increasing problem involving largely Americans, that harms both buyer and seller, and which requires a solution to the organ shortage problem to resolve it.
The thesis is reasonable because many problems with smuggling and illegal markets arise from shortages somewhere.
It is certainly interesting because this is a problem that, as the writer noted, is not discussed often, but is gruesome.
The intro section is quite long. Perhaps some of the detail could be summarized in the introduction. Then the details could go into later paragraphs. The way that the second section is introduced is a little confusing. Saying “first” suggests that there was a question asked just before. This is not clear.
This second paragraph discusses the people who are involved in organ trafficking. It also discusses the bad things that happen to the people involved in organ trafficking, both the sellers and the receivers.
The third paragraph discusses why trafficking persists. It would have been nice to have a definition of hortatory. It would also maybe be nice to have some indication of what factors in those countries where this occurs contribute to such profound poverty that people feel the need to do this.
The fourth paragraph talks about enforcement problems.
The fifth paragraph discusses an example of organ trafficking by the Kosovo Liberation Army.
The sixth paragraph gets into the question of why there is an organ shortage. This use of “second” is also a bit confusing. However, it is very interesting.
The seventh, eighth, and ninth paragraphs discuss systems that do seem to work.
The ninth paragraph concludes that the donation system should be changed to reduce the demand for illegal organs. The writer takes a stand on using the system now in use in Illinois for all US states.
In general, the paper flows. The argument does seem to flow. The exceptions are where the writer uses numbers as a transition. This is confusing because this makes the reader try to look backward and forwards to find what came before and what would come later. It is not easy to figure this out. Maybe not using numbers would be better for transitions.
Yes, the paper uses at least three sources. All seem to be scholarly.
It is not easy to figure out whether the writer is making an original argument without going back and doing the research for oneself. However, it seems like a clear statement of things that seem to make sense. A quick Google search turns up an abstract of an article that says something similar.
However, the writer has taken a definite position on which specific system for organ donation could work, and why it would work, so even if it is not completely original, the paper lists good reasons for the conclusion and makes the reader think a bit about the topic. The writer has thought about the topic and came up with ideas that are wholly their own, for example, drawing a comparison between Jehovah’s Witnesses and door-to-door agents to explain organ donation to families.
The paper does not seem to rely on one source only. However, determining this, too, would require going back and re-researching the topic oneself.
The paper does develop its main points well. The paper explains most points, except for the meaning of hortatory. The logic appears to be sound. The assumptions seem to be reasonable. The writer uses the disturbing story of the Kosovo Liberation Army case as evidence and support for the ineffectiveness of the legal system in controlling organ trafficking.
The writer does not address the question of whether organ donation is always a good thing, which some religions assert. The writer also does not address the question of creating acceptable alternatives through research. These alternatives could be mechanical, such as heart pumps. They could come from non-human sources (such as a pig).
They could also come from the growth of human tissue into replacement organs. These alternatives could offer great hope to those in need of organs. They could also avoid the potential for the kinds of abuses that the paper describes. However, the paper does cover the issue of making the organ donation system better, which is all that the paper set out to do.
Presentation and global issues
The paper cites throughout, and the bibliography is largely correct except for some punctuation. The format is correct. It is not possible to determine whether everything is cited properly because that would require re-researching all the references.
The paper has some very long sentences, which could be helped by cutting them in two. There is a recurrent problem of agreement of number between nouns, verbs, and adjectives. There is some use of & rather than writing it out as a word. Sometimes “the” is missing. Some sentences are a bit awkward, but they are also confident.
This paper is convincing because the writer seems to believe in what they are saying. The KLA example is so vivid; it stays in mind long afterward. The paper is also strong in that it points out the danger to the receivers of illegal organs as well as to the people who have had their organs taken. The conclusion is strong when it says that the laws are” encouraging but not enforcing.”