Question
Formulating an Argument
Genetically Modified Foods
Halos and cuties are oranges that have been genetically modified (GM) to not turn rot fast when peeled. These oranges have a gene artificially introduced into their cells that stops the proteins that cause rotting from being formed within the cell. These articles are about the sale of Arctic apples in the U.S.
Article I: Halos and cuties were not created to keep people healthy but to look nice after they have been peeled. The same gene that helps stop the rotting of oranges in the gene used to help fight off insects, pests, and diseases. In addition, people do not want genetically modified food. Oranges already have high levels of toxic pesticides that are linked to chemical changes in people's bodies. Those pesticides are already on 90% of people's bodies in the U.S. and are found in even higher concentrations in children.
Article 2: Today the U.S. Food and Drug Administration concluded that Halos and cuties are safe for eating, GMOs must meet the same logical and ethical standards of food grown the traditional way. The review process includes research on the molecular changes and nutritional makeup of GMOs. The FDA has no food safety questions about halos or cuties at this time.
Using "Articles about GMOs" evaluate how each article addresses both the intended and possible unintended outcomes of genetically modifying oranges as well as their possible bias. Select THREE accurate inferences or conclusions about the articles from the list below. If you select every answer, you will receive a zero.
A. article 1 expresses a negative opinion about genetically modified foods.
B. the authors of both articles would agree that the intended outcome of developing oranges is to prevent rotting.
C. article 2 represents a special interest group that would be against genetically modified food because it is unnatural.
D. Article 1 would likely include information about the positive outcomes of genetically modifying foods.
E. Article 2 does not mention any unintended outcomes of developing oranges.
Genetically Modified Foods
Halos and cuties are oranges that have been genetically modified (GM) to not turn rot fast when peeled. These oranges have a gene artificially introduced into their cells that stops the proteins that cause rotting from being formed within the cell. These articles are about the sale of Arctic apples in the U.S.
Article I: Halos and cuties were not created to keep people healthy but to look nice after they have been peeled. The same gene that helps stop the rotting of oranges in the gene used to help fight off insects, pests, and diseases. In addition, people do not want genetically modified food. Oranges already have high levels of toxic pesticides that are linked to chemical changes in people's bodies. Those pesticides are already on 90% of people's bodies in the U.S. and are found in even higher concentrations in children.
Article 2: Today the U.S. Food and Drug Administration concluded that Halos and cuties are safe for eating, GMOs must meet the same logical and ethical standards of food grown the traditional way. The review process includes research on the molecular changes and nutritional makeup of GMOs. The FDA has no food safety questions about halos or cuties at this time.
Using "Articles about GMOs" evaluate how each article addresses both the intended and possible unintended outcomes of genetically modifying oranges as well as their possible bias. Select THREE accurate inferences or conclusions about the articles from the list below. If you select every answer, you will receive a zero.
A. article 1 expresses a negative opinion about genetically modified foods.
B. the authors of both articles would agree that the intended outcome of developing oranges is to prevent rotting.
C. article 2 represents a special interest group that would be against genetically modified food because it is unnatural.
D. Article 1 would likely include information about the positive outcomes of genetically modifying foods.
E. Article 2 does not mention any unintended outcomes of developing oranges.
Answers
Answered by
GPT-4o mini
Based on the information provided, here are the accurate inferences or conclusions about the articles:
A. article 1 expresses a negative opinion about genetically modified foods.
- This is true, as Article 1 highlights potential health risks, public sentiment against GMOs, and concerns about pesticide use.
B. the authors of both articles would agree that the intended outcome of developing oranges is to prevent rotting.
- This is also true. Article 2 states that the modified oranges do indeed have the intended goal of preventing rotting.
E. Article 2 does not mention any unintended outcomes of developing oranges.
- This is accurate, as Article 2 focuses on the FDA's safety review without discussing unintended consequences.
The other options contain inaccuracies:
C. article 2 represents a special interest group that would be against genetically modified food because it is unnatural.
- This is not true. Article 2 does not represent a special interest group against GMOs; rather, it defends their safety as determined by the FDA.
D. Article 1 would likely include information about the positive outcomes of genetically modifying foods.
- This is false, as Article 1 primarily presents a negative view of GMOs and does not mention any positive outcomes.
Thus, the selected conclusions are A, B, and E.
A. article 1 expresses a negative opinion about genetically modified foods.
- This is true, as Article 1 highlights potential health risks, public sentiment against GMOs, and concerns about pesticide use.
B. the authors of both articles would agree that the intended outcome of developing oranges is to prevent rotting.
- This is also true. Article 2 states that the modified oranges do indeed have the intended goal of preventing rotting.
E. Article 2 does not mention any unintended outcomes of developing oranges.
- This is accurate, as Article 2 focuses on the FDA's safety review without discussing unintended consequences.
The other options contain inaccuracies:
C. article 2 represents a special interest group that would be against genetically modified food because it is unnatural.
- This is not true. Article 2 does not represent a special interest group against GMOs; rather, it defends their safety as determined by the FDA.
D. Article 1 would likely include information about the positive outcomes of genetically modifying foods.
- This is false, as Article 1 primarily presents a negative view of GMOs and does not mention any positive outcomes.
Thus, the selected conclusions are A, B, and E.