To determine which statement best describes the difference in how the authors of two passages develop their arguments regarding industrial-scale farming and organic farming, it's important to consider the perspective, structure, and evidence used in each passage.
Typically, in such contrasting arguments:
-
Tone and Language: One passage may use more technical or scientific jargon to advocate for industrial-scale farming, emphasizing efficiency and productivity, while the other may employ emotive language to highlight the benefits of organic farming and its positive environmental impacts.
-
Supporting Evidence: One author might rely heavily on statistical data, case studies, or economic analyses to back their claims about industrial farming, while the other might utilize anecdotal evidence, qualitative studies, or ethical considerations to support organic farming.
-
Focus on Consequences: The author favoring industrial farming may focus on the overall food production and economic benefits, while the author advocating for organic farming may emphasize long-term sustainability, biodiversity, and soil health.
-
Philosophical Approach: One passage may take a utilitarian approach to argue that industrial farming maximizes food production for a growing population, whereas the other may adopt an ethical standpoint that prioritizes environmental stewardship and animal welfare.
Without the actual content of the two passages, I can't provide a specific statement. However, understanding these general differences can help you analyze the contrasting approaches effectively. If you have specific excerpts or further details about the passages, I could assist you in a more targeted way!