Reminder: You may use the comparison organizer you completed from the Unit 5 and Unit 6 Introduction pages to help you formulate your response to the prompt. Please open the Rubric for this question so you know how you're graded.

In assessing the articles "Genetically Modified Salmon Can Feed the World" and "Say No to Genetically Engineered Salmon," the former presents a more compelling argument for the adoption of genetically modified salmon. Proponents of genetically modified salmon emphasize its potential to alleviate global food shortages, citing evidence that these fish grow faster and can be raised more sustainably than traditional salmon. For instance, the article highlights that genetically modified salmon require less feed and can thrive in various environmental conditions, making them an effective solution to meet the rising demand for seafood.

In contrast, the opposition raises valid concerns about the environmental impact and potential risks to biodiversity posed by genetically engineered salmon. They argue that introducing this species into the wild could disrupt local ecosystems. However, the claims against genetically modified salmon often lack definitive empirical evidence, relying instead on hypothetical scenarios. The first article effectively counters this by pointing out that with stringent regulations and proper containment measures, the risks can be minimized.

Ultimately, while both articles present important viewpoints, the argument in favor of genetically modified salmon is bolstered by its focus on practical solutions to hunger and environmental sustainability, paired with the promise of innovation in food production. This makes it the more effective argument, demonstrating a path forward that reconciles the need for increased food supply with ecological responsibility.