Question
DO NOT AND I REPEAT DO NOT MAKE IT LONG TO READ
Directions: Within Unit 3, lessons 1-8 have prepared you to complete a piece of analytical writing. Recall what you have learned in this portfolio to write an analysis of the texts, "Genetically Modified Salmon Can Feed the World" by Yonathan Zohar and "Say No to Genetically Engineered Salmon" by Rick Moonen. Use the prompts to guide your response.
Your portfolio must include the following:
- A minimum one paragraph response to each of the questions listed below. No introduction or conclusion are needed. You will turn in at least three paragraphs.
- This assignment is NOT a compare and contrast between the two articles. This assignment is NOT asking for your opinion, or for you to pick which article is more persuasive.
- In-text citations when referencing the two articles. Ex. (Zohar) or (Moonen) According to Moonen, "dfosfjos". "Dsfsolf'" (Moonen)
Textbook Directions: Write a paragraph in which you describe the steps that experienced readers can use to analyze conflicting information in texts about the same topic. Explain why it is important for readers to recognize and evaluate conflicting information.
Provide specific examples from the two texts. Reworded Directions: As to not be fooled into believing everything you read, what should you look for in the article before you view it as reliable/credible/believable? Look at the text features, such as titles and subtitles. Look at the publication itself. Who published it? Is there an organization or group behind the publication? Who is the author? Are they reliable? What does that group represent? Is the author getting paid to write this? Are their multiple viewpoints published? Ask questions as you read. Is this a logical argument? Is there anything the author is leaving out?
Your paragraph should outline the steps you would take to decide if the author's words are believable. You can number the steps within your paragraph. Explain why it is important to recognize and evaluate both sides to an argument. Provide at least two examples from both texts.
2. Textbook Directions:Write a paragraph in which you explain why it matters when the two authors interpret the same facts differently.
Using specific examples from the two texts, describe the impact of the authors' differing interpretations of the facts on you as a reader.
Cone Reworded Directions: Is the information really conflicting, or have the authors focused on different facts? Authors look at the same fact or statistic and present it in a different way in order to help their argument. Has this happened in either of the passages? Is the information misleading or incomplete? Why should you as an educated reader educate yourself about conflicting points of view?
What should the reader look for in order to understand both points of view? Find examples from the two passages where the authors use the same information but in different ways to enhance their own argument.
3. Textbook Directions:Write a paragraph in which you explain how including a conflicting point of view and evidence in an argument can make it more persuasive. Describe the effect that including a conflicting point of view and evidence can have on readers. Give specific examples.
Cone Reworded Directions: Why is it beneficial to address the conflicting point of view? Author "A" believes Cake is best. Author "B" believes Pie is best. Why would it be beneficial for Author A to discuss Pie in their argument? What could Author A say about Pie that would help the Cake argument. Find examples from the Salmon articles where both author's include each other's arguments. IE. When Moonen brings up Zohar's perspectives and when Zohar brings up Moonen's perspective. Provide examples from the text.
Directions: Within Unit 3, lessons 1-8 have prepared you to complete a piece of analytical writing. Recall what you have learned in this portfolio to write an analysis of the texts, "Genetically Modified Salmon Can Feed the World" by Yonathan Zohar and "Say No to Genetically Engineered Salmon" by Rick Moonen. Use the prompts to guide your response.
Your portfolio must include the following:
- A minimum one paragraph response to each of the questions listed below. No introduction or conclusion are needed. You will turn in at least three paragraphs.
- This assignment is NOT a compare and contrast between the two articles. This assignment is NOT asking for your opinion, or for you to pick which article is more persuasive.
- In-text citations when referencing the two articles. Ex. (Zohar) or (Moonen) According to Moonen, "dfosfjos". "Dsfsolf'" (Moonen)
Textbook Directions: Write a paragraph in which you describe the steps that experienced readers can use to analyze conflicting information in texts about the same topic. Explain why it is important for readers to recognize and evaluate conflicting information.
Provide specific examples from the two texts. Reworded Directions: As to not be fooled into believing everything you read, what should you look for in the article before you view it as reliable/credible/believable? Look at the text features, such as titles and subtitles. Look at the publication itself. Who published it? Is there an organization or group behind the publication? Who is the author? Are they reliable? What does that group represent? Is the author getting paid to write this? Are their multiple viewpoints published? Ask questions as you read. Is this a logical argument? Is there anything the author is leaving out?
Your paragraph should outline the steps you would take to decide if the author's words are believable. You can number the steps within your paragraph. Explain why it is important to recognize and evaluate both sides to an argument. Provide at least two examples from both texts.
2. Textbook Directions:Write a paragraph in which you explain why it matters when the two authors interpret the same facts differently.
Using specific examples from the two texts, describe the impact of the authors' differing interpretations of the facts on you as a reader.
Cone Reworded Directions: Is the information really conflicting, or have the authors focused on different facts? Authors look at the same fact or statistic and present it in a different way in order to help their argument. Has this happened in either of the passages? Is the information misleading or incomplete? Why should you as an educated reader educate yourself about conflicting points of view?
What should the reader look for in order to understand both points of view? Find examples from the two passages where the authors use the same information but in different ways to enhance their own argument.
3. Textbook Directions:Write a paragraph in which you explain how including a conflicting point of view and evidence in an argument can make it more persuasive. Describe the effect that including a conflicting point of view and evidence can have on readers. Give specific examples.
Cone Reworded Directions: Why is it beneficial to address the conflicting point of view? Author "A" believes Cake is best. Author "B" believes Pie is best. Why would it be beneficial for Author A to discuss Pie in their argument? What could Author A say about Pie that would help the Cake argument. Find examples from the Salmon articles where both author's include each other's arguments. IE. When Moonen brings up Zohar's perspectives and when Zohar brings up Moonen's perspective. Provide examples from the text.
Answers
GPT-4o mini
1. To analyze conflicting information in texts about the same topic, experienced readers should take several steps. First, they should identify the authors and their credentials; for instance, Yonathan Zohar is a professor of marine biotechnology and advocates for genetically modified (GM) salmon, while Rick Moonen, a chef and restaurateur, raises concerns about their safety and environmental impact (Zohar; Moonen). Second, readers should examine the publication sources for reliability. Zohar's article appears in a scientific journal, which may indicate a scholarly purpose, while Moonen's article appears in a culinary context, potentially targeting public sentiment (Zohar; Moonen). Third, readers should look for logical consistency in the arguments presented. Zohar presents GM salmon as a solution to world hunger, using statistics on fish demand, while Moonen argues that such technology could disrupt ecosystems (Zohar; Moonen). It is essential to recognize and evaluate conflicting information because it helps readers form a balanced understanding of the topic rather than absorbing biased or incomplete viewpoints. For example, Zohar emphasizes the nutritional benefits of GM salmon, while Moonen counters with concerns about their effects on wild salmon populations (Zohar; Moonen).
2. The differing interpretations of the same facts by Zohar and Moonen highlight the subjective nature of argumentation and its impact on readers. For instance, both authors discuss the environmental impact of fish farming; Zohar views genetically modified salmon as a means to alleviate pressure on wild fish stocks, suggesting a positive outcome, whereas Moonen frames the same facts to underscore the potential dangers of introducing GM species into natural habitats (Zohar; Moonen). This conflicting presentation can confuse readers, leading them to question which perspective is accurate or more relevant. As an educated reader, it is crucial to understand that authors may selectively highlight information to support their arguments. By critically assessing both sides, readers can discern whether the information presented is misleading or incomplete. Recognizing these nuances can enhance one's understanding of complex issues, such as the debate surrounding GM salmon, where both authors present valid concerns that may inform the reader’s perspective (Zohar; Moonen).
3. Including conflicting points of view and evidence in an argument can enhance its persuasiveness by demonstrating a comprehensive understanding of the topic. For instance, Zohar addresses Moonen's concerns by acknowledging potential environmental risks associated with GM salmon but argues that these can be mitigated through proper regulation and oversight (Zohar; Moonen). Similarly, Moonen concedes that technological advancements can have benefits but emphasizes the unknown long-term risks involved, which leaves room for critical evaluation of GM salmon (Moonen). By incorporating opposing viewpoints, both authors make their arguments more robust and credible. This approach acknowledges the complexity of the issue, allowing readers to engage with and critically analyze the presented information. Ultimately, addressing the counterarguments not only strengthens the author's position but also fosters a more informed dialogue around the benefits and risks of GM salmon production (Zohar; Moonen).
2. The differing interpretations of the same facts by Zohar and Moonen highlight the subjective nature of argumentation and its impact on readers. For instance, both authors discuss the environmental impact of fish farming; Zohar views genetically modified salmon as a means to alleviate pressure on wild fish stocks, suggesting a positive outcome, whereas Moonen frames the same facts to underscore the potential dangers of introducing GM species into natural habitats (Zohar; Moonen). This conflicting presentation can confuse readers, leading them to question which perspective is accurate or more relevant. As an educated reader, it is crucial to understand that authors may selectively highlight information to support their arguments. By critically assessing both sides, readers can discern whether the information presented is misleading or incomplete. Recognizing these nuances can enhance one's understanding of complex issues, such as the debate surrounding GM salmon, where both authors present valid concerns that may inform the reader’s perspective (Zohar; Moonen).
3. Including conflicting points of view and evidence in an argument can enhance its persuasiveness by demonstrating a comprehensive understanding of the topic. For instance, Zohar addresses Moonen's concerns by acknowledging potential environmental risks associated with GM salmon but argues that these can be mitigated through proper regulation and oversight (Zohar; Moonen). Similarly, Moonen concedes that technological advancements can have benefits but emphasizes the unknown long-term risks involved, which leaves room for critical evaluation of GM salmon (Moonen). By incorporating opposing viewpoints, both authors make their arguments more robust and credible. This approach acknowledges the complexity of the issue, allowing readers to engage with and critically analyze the presented information. Ultimately, addressing the counterarguments not only strengthens the author's position but also fosters a more informed dialogue around the benefits and risks of GM salmon production (Zohar; Moonen).