Question
Text 1:
From "Genetically Modified Salmon Can Feed the World" by Yonathan Zohar:
We have all been eating selectively bred fish, chicken, beef and other animals for many years without thinking twice about it. The AquAdvantage Atlantic salmon has only one extra copy of a fish gene inserted into its genome. This one addition, while enhancing the hormones of the growth axis in fish, operates within the fish's physiological range. And these are fish hormones that have no effect on the human consumer.
The AquAdvantage salmon is no different from conventional farmed salmon in its composition and
health benefits, and the Food and Drug Administration [EDA] has concluded that it is safe for people to eat.
Text 2:
From "Say No to Genetically Engineered Salmon" by Rick Moonen:
What process has the FDA used to determine whether the genetically modified fish is safe for human health and the environment? We did not know during most of the agency's evaluation process.
FDA regulations allow genetically modified animals to be evaluated under the same rules as veterinary pharmaceuticals. So the information given to the agency by the applicant is confidential; in the case of this fish, the information was not posted on the FDA website until the announcement on safety was made in early September.
The FDA will hold a public meeting on February 21 to discuss how the fish should be labeled ... Protecting a greedy company's "confidential information" should not be acceptable when you are introducing the first genetically modified animal for human consumption into the marketplace.
Use the two texts to compare and contrast each question. 1 paragraph per question
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
From "Genetically Modified Salmon Can Feed the World" by Yonathan Zohar:
We have all been eating selectively bred fish, chicken, beef and other animals for many years without thinking twice about it. The AquAdvantage Atlantic salmon has only one extra copy of a fish gene inserted into its genome. This one addition, while enhancing the hormones of the growth axis in fish, operates within the fish's physiological range. And these are fish hormones that have no effect on the human consumer.
The AquAdvantage salmon is no different from conventional farmed salmon in its composition and
health benefits, and the Food and Drug Administration [EDA] has concluded that it is safe for people to eat.
Text 2:
From "Say No to Genetically Engineered Salmon" by Rick Moonen:
What process has the FDA used to determine whether the genetically modified fish is safe for human health and the environment? We did not know during most of the agency's evaluation process.
FDA regulations allow genetically modified animals to be evaluated under the same rules as veterinary pharmaceuticals. So the information given to the agency by the applicant is confidential; in the case of this fish, the information was not posted on the FDA website until the announcement on safety was made in early September.
The FDA will hold a public meeting on February 21 to discuss how the fish should be labeled ... Protecting a greedy company's "confidential information" should not be acceptable when you are introducing the first genetically modified animal for human consumption into the marketplace.
Use the two texts to compare and contrast each question. 1 paragraph per question
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
Answers
GPT-4o mini
1. Experienced readers can analyze conflicting information by thoroughly evaluating the credibility of each source, noting the authors' perspectives and potential biases, and cross-referencing factual claims with established scientific evidence or third-party analyses. It is important for readers to recognize and evaluate conflicting information because this fosters critical thinking and informed decision-making. For instance, in Text 1, Yonathan Zohar presents the AquAdvantage Atlantic salmon as safe and harmless, emphasizing that its genetic modification does not alter its health benefits or composition compared to conventional salmon. In contrast, Rick Moonen in Text 2 raises concerns about the FDA's opaque evaluation process, questioning the safety and regulatory practices surrounding the genetically modified fish. By engaging with both perspectives, readers can better assess the reliability of safety claims and the implications of regulatory transparency on consumer trust.
2. The differing interpretations of the same facts by the two authors can significantly impact the reader's perception and understanding of the issue at hand. For example, while Zohar focuses on the safety and benefits of consuming genetically modified salmon, Moonen highlights the lack of transparency in the FDA's evaluation process, raising doubts about the reliability of the assurances provided. As a reader, these contrasting viewpoints compel one to grapple with the complexity of the issue—whether to accept the assurance of safety or to be wary of possible undisclosed risks. This divergence in interpretation encourages a more nuanced understanding of food safety and the implications of biotechnology, fostering a sense of caution and advocacy for greater transparency in reporting.
3. Including a conflicting point of view and evidence in an argument can significantly enhance its persuasiveness by demonstrating a balanced consideration of the topic and reinforcing the argument's credibility. For example, while Zohar promotes the AquAdvantage salmon as safe, the acknowledgment of Moonen's counterarguments regarding the FDA's evaluation process adds depth to Zohar's claims. By addressing potential criticisms and responding to them, Zohar could strengthen his position by showing he has considered opposing views. This approach not only improves the argument's integrity but also engages readers by appealing to their critical thinking, prompting them to reflect on both sides of the debate and ultimately arrive at a more informed conclusion. By acknowledging the concerns raised by Moonen, Zohar could build his case more compellingly against the backdrop of public skepticism, thereby enhancing the overall dialogue surrounding genetically modified organisms.
2. The differing interpretations of the same facts by the two authors can significantly impact the reader's perception and understanding of the issue at hand. For example, while Zohar focuses on the safety and benefits of consuming genetically modified salmon, Moonen highlights the lack of transparency in the FDA's evaluation process, raising doubts about the reliability of the assurances provided. As a reader, these contrasting viewpoints compel one to grapple with the complexity of the issue—whether to accept the assurance of safety or to be wary of possible undisclosed risks. This divergence in interpretation encourages a more nuanced understanding of food safety and the implications of biotechnology, fostering a sense of caution and advocacy for greater transparency in reporting.
3. Including a conflicting point of view and evidence in an argument can significantly enhance its persuasiveness by demonstrating a balanced consideration of the topic and reinforcing the argument's credibility. For example, while Zohar promotes the AquAdvantage salmon as safe, the acknowledgment of Moonen's counterarguments regarding the FDA's evaluation process adds depth to Zohar's claims. By addressing potential criticisms and responding to them, Zohar could strengthen his position by showing he has considered opposing views. This approach not only improves the argument's integrity but also engages readers by appealing to their critical thinking, prompting them to reflect on both sides of the debate and ultimately arrive at a more informed conclusion. By acknowledging the concerns raised by Moonen, Zohar could build his case more compellingly against the backdrop of public skepticism, thereby enhancing the overall dialogue surrounding genetically modified organisms.