Explanation:
Ethical doubts about genetic engineering motivate a view that many philosophers favour: that genetic therapy to eliminate disease and disability is ethically acceptable, given that the risks can be overcome.
But genetic enhancement is ethically problematic. The line between enhancement and therapy is difficult to draw.
Studies show people who are physically attractive are likely to earn more than those considered to have below-average looks. Does this mean “ugliness” is a disability that ought to be corrected by genetic engineering?
Or, similarly, is having a below-average IQ a disability, something that should be subject to change through gene-editing?
Answer:
<h2>Working out in a gym.</h2>
Explanation:
Among options, "working out in a gym" is the healthy activity.
What Sophia is trying to do is to encourage to a healthy activity, so going out to a bar, chewing tobacco and going to a party, those are not activities that lead to healthy results, but to alcohol and drugs consumption which attempts against any healthy habit. So, basically that's why "working out in a gym" is the right answer.
If this is a true or false question, the answer is true.
