I think it's also good to mention that this kind of questionnaire does not account for possible future advancements which are not included due to lack of availability. The same though applies for further negative changes in the future, but when looking at that list for an example items follows are completely missing:

• Legislation for improving the safety and conditions of cryopreserved people is passed
• Neuroscientists develop new general techniques for restoring function in patients with braindamage
• Breakthrough in nanotechnology allows better analysis and faster repair of damaged neurons
• Supercomputers can be used to retrace the original condition of modified or damaged brain
• Supercomputers (with the help of FAI?) can be used to reconstruct missing data from redundancy(like mentioned above in Benja's comment )

etc..

..That is to say it's one thing to 'unpack' a proposition and another to do it accurately or at least I would think a questionnaire with uncertain positive and negative future events would seem less biased.

I think it's also worthwhile to consider the possibility that this unpacking business is an sort of an inverse of conjunction fallacy - although it's not exactly the same thing, but I think it's a very closely related topic?