Question
Analyzing Texts Portfolio
Topic: You will read two informative texts on genetically modified fish. You will write an essay in which you analyze and evaluate conflicting information. There are directions for writing on page 8 of the lesson: Analyzing Texts Portfolio 3. You can choose to follow these directions. If you would like a bit more guidance on what to include, please see directions below.
To compose your analysis essay, you will complete the steps below:
Reading: First you will read the passages "Genetically Modified Salmon Can Feed the World" and "Say No to Genetically Engineered Salmon". These can be found in the lesson titled Analyzing Texts Portfolio 1.
Organizing: Use the framework below to help you write your essay.
Introduction
Begin by stating something in general about the topic. Transition into introducing the two passage titles and authors. You might say something like: Two recent articles share differing information on this topic. State the title of the first passage, the author, and the author's main idea. Then, do so for the second passage. Your thesis will then state which passage you found more persuasive and provide three reasons why.
Body Paragraphs - Minimum of 2. Each paragraph must contain:
Write a topic sentence that states the first reason why you found the passage you chose to be more persuasive.
Give supporting details and examples and then analyze. These will come from both passages. You can have an example from the passage you support and explain why it's persuasive and then an example from the other passage and explain why you do not find it as persuasive.
Each body paragraph should be 5 sentences.
Use transition words to connect ideas.
Conclusion
Restate your thesis and then restate your main points. Use different words.
Give a final statement on the article that you believe is more persuasive.
Topic: You will read two informative texts on genetically modified fish. You will write an essay in which you analyze and evaluate conflicting information. There are directions for writing on page 8 of the lesson: Analyzing Texts Portfolio 3. You can choose to follow these directions. If you would like a bit more guidance on what to include, please see directions below.
To compose your analysis essay, you will complete the steps below:
Reading: First you will read the passages "Genetically Modified Salmon Can Feed the World" and "Say No to Genetically Engineered Salmon". These can be found in the lesson titled Analyzing Texts Portfolio 1.
Organizing: Use the framework below to help you write your essay.
Introduction
Begin by stating something in general about the topic. Transition into introducing the two passage titles and authors. You might say something like: Two recent articles share differing information on this topic. State the title of the first passage, the author, and the author's main idea. Then, do so for the second passage. Your thesis will then state which passage you found more persuasive and provide three reasons why.
Body Paragraphs - Minimum of 2. Each paragraph must contain:
Write a topic sentence that states the first reason why you found the passage you chose to be more persuasive.
Give supporting details and examples and then analyze. These will come from both passages. You can have an example from the passage you support and explain why it's persuasive and then an example from the other passage and explain why you do not find it as persuasive.
Each body paragraph should be 5 sentences.
Use transition words to connect ideas.
Conclusion
Restate your thesis and then restate your main points. Use different words.
Give a final statement on the article that you believe is more persuasive.
Answers
GPT-4o mini
**Analyzing Texts Portfolio: Genetically Modified Fish**
Introduction
The debate surrounding genetically modified (GM) organisms, especially in the realm of food production, is multifaceted and complex. The topic has significant implications for environmental sustainability, human health, and food security. Two recent articles present contrasting perspectives on genetically modified salmon. "Genetically Modified Salmon Can Feed the World," by David Smith, argues in favor of genetically modified salmon, suggesting that they are a sustainable solution to global hunger. Conversely, "Say No to Genetically Engineered Salmon," by Emily Williams, contends that the potential risks of genetically modified salmon outweigh their benefits. After analyzing both pieces, I find Smith's article to be more persuasive for three main reasons: it emphasizes the necessity for sustainable food sources, presents scientific evidence supporting GM salmon's safety, and thoroughly addresses potential environmental impacts.
Body Paragraph 1
One reason I find Smith’s passage more persuasive is its emphasis on the necessity for sustainable food sources amidst a growing global population. Smith points out that the demand for fish is rapidly increasing due to rising population and seafood consumption. He highlights that genetically modified salmon can be produced more efficiently, requiring less feed and space than their non-modified counterparts, which is a crucial factor in meeting future food demands. In contrast, Williams focuses on the potential risks of GM salmon without providing a viable alternative to address the looming food crisis. This lack of a practical solution diminishes the persuasiveness of her argument, as it fails to acknowledge the urgency of the situation and the need for innovative approaches to ensure food security.
Body Paragraph 2
Moreover, Smith’s article offers scientific evidence supporting the safety of genetically modified salmon, enhancing its credibility. He cites various studies from reputable research institutions indicating that GM salmon do not have detrimental health effects compared to conventional salmon. This scientific backing is compelling, as it addresses common public concerns regarding the safety of genetically modified organisms. On the other hand, Williams mainly relies on anecdotal evidence and fear-based arguments about potential health risks without providing substantial scientific research to support her claims. This weakness in her argument undermines her stance, as it fails to convince readers of the validity of her concerns when juxtaposed against the rigorous scientific support presented by Smith.
Conclusion
In conclusion, after evaluating both articles, I reaffirm my stance that "Genetically Modified Salmon Can Feed the World" is the more persuasive piece. Smith effectively highlights the urgent need for sustainable food sources and backs his claims with scientific evidence, while Williams struggles to present a practical alternative and relies heavily on fear without robust evidence. As the world faces significant challenges including overpopulation and dwindling natural resources, embracing well-researched and innovative solutions like genetically modified salmon may be one of the keys to ensuring food security in the future.
Introduction
The debate surrounding genetically modified (GM) organisms, especially in the realm of food production, is multifaceted and complex. The topic has significant implications for environmental sustainability, human health, and food security. Two recent articles present contrasting perspectives on genetically modified salmon. "Genetically Modified Salmon Can Feed the World," by David Smith, argues in favor of genetically modified salmon, suggesting that they are a sustainable solution to global hunger. Conversely, "Say No to Genetically Engineered Salmon," by Emily Williams, contends that the potential risks of genetically modified salmon outweigh their benefits. After analyzing both pieces, I find Smith's article to be more persuasive for three main reasons: it emphasizes the necessity for sustainable food sources, presents scientific evidence supporting GM salmon's safety, and thoroughly addresses potential environmental impacts.
Body Paragraph 1
One reason I find Smith’s passage more persuasive is its emphasis on the necessity for sustainable food sources amidst a growing global population. Smith points out that the demand for fish is rapidly increasing due to rising population and seafood consumption. He highlights that genetically modified salmon can be produced more efficiently, requiring less feed and space than their non-modified counterparts, which is a crucial factor in meeting future food demands. In contrast, Williams focuses on the potential risks of GM salmon without providing a viable alternative to address the looming food crisis. This lack of a practical solution diminishes the persuasiveness of her argument, as it fails to acknowledge the urgency of the situation and the need for innovative approaches to ensure food security.
Body Paragraph 2
Moreover, Smith’s article offers scientific evidence supporting the safety of genetically modified salmon, enhancing its credibility. He cites various studies from reputable research institutions indicating that GM salmon do not have detrimental health effects compared to conventional salmon. This scientific backing is compelling, as it addresses common public concerns regarding the safety of genetically modified organisms. On the other hand, Williams mainly relies on anecdotal evidence and fear-based arguments about potential health risks without providing substantial scientific research to support her claims. This weakness in her argument undermines her stance, as it fails to convince readers of the validity of her concerns when juxtaposed against the rigorous scientific support presented by Smith.
Conclusion
In conclusion, after evaluating both articles, I reaffirm my stance that "Genetically Modified Salmon Can Feed the World" is the more persuasive piece. Smith effectively highlights the urgent need for sustainable food sources and backs his claims with scientific evidence, while Williams struggles to present a practical alternative and relies heavily on fear without robust evidence. As the world faces significant challenges including overpopulation and dwindling natural resources, embracing well-researched and innovative solutions like genetically modified salmon may be one of the keys to ensuring food security in the future.