Ask a New Question
Menu

passage:%0A%E2%80%A2%20Claim%201%3A%20If%20you%20have%20ever%20eaten%20anything%20that%20has%20grown%20in%20the%20ground,%20you've%20almost%20certainly%20eaten%20genetically%20modified%20organisms.%20Genetic%20engineering%20has%20been%20integral%20to%20the%20human%20diet%20for%20thousands%20of%20years,%20and%20it's%20given%20us%20a%20wider%20and%20better%20variety%20of%20foods.%20Adapting%20this%20technology%20on%20a%20wider%20scale%20will%20allow%20that%20very%20positive%20trend%20to%20continue.%0A%0A%E2%80%A2%20Claim%202%3A%20Over%202,000%20scientific%20studies%20performed%20worldwide%20have%20shown%20that%20genetically%20modified%20crops%20are%20safe%20and%20that%20they%20have%20the%20potential%20to%20enrich%20the%20human%20diet%20nutritionally,%20lower%20the%20price%20of%20food,%20and%20end%20food%20insecurity%20in%20a%20world%20where%20the%20growing%20population%20continues%20to%20place%20a%20strain%20on%20resources.%0A%0AA.%20Claim%201%20takes%20an%20affirmative%20position%20toward%20genetically%20modified%20foods,%20while%20Claim%202%20takes%20a%20negative%20position.%20%0AB.%20Claim%201%20establishes%20an%20informal,%20conversational%20style%20through%20the%20use%20of%20contractions%20and%20point%20of%20view.%20%0AC.%20Claim%201%20relies%20solely%20on%20anecdotal%20evidence,%20while%20Claim%202%20uses%20a%20wider%20range%20of%20supporting%20evidence.%20%0AD.%20Claim%201%20establishes%20a%20formal,%20academic%20style%20through%20the%20use%20of%20complex%20syntax%20and%20advanced%20vocabulary.%0A%0ACompare%20the%20two%20claims%20above.%20How%20do%20these%20claims%20differ%20from%20one%20another?

1 answer

The two claims presented differ primarily in their approach and supporting evidence regarding genetically modified organisms (GMOs):

  1. Tone and Style:

    • Claim 1 adopts a more conversational and affirmative tone. It presents genetic engineering as a natural and long-standing part of human agriculture, implying a positive view of GMOs with an emphasis on their historical significance.
    • Claim 2, on the other hand, adopts a more formal and scientific tone, presenting data from a large number of studies to support claims about the safety and benefits of genetically modified crops.

  2. Type of Evidence:

    • Claim 1 suggests that genetic engineering has always been part of food development without providing concrete evidence or studies to back this assertion. It is more anecdotal in nature, relying on the idea that most foods have genetic modifications over time.
    • Claim 2 explicitly states that over 2,000 scientific studies have established the safety and potential benefits of GMOs, including nutritional enrichment and economic advantages. This claim is backed by quantitative research, reinforcing its argument with a wider range of empirical evidence.

  3. Focus:

    • Claim 1 emphasizes the long historical relationship humans have had with genetic engineering in food, framing it as a continuity of progress.
    • Claim 2 focuses more on the current and future implications of GMOs, emphasizing the urgency of addressing food insecurity due to population growth.

In summary, the two claims differ in their tone, the type of evidence provided, and their overall focus on GMO technology's historical context versus its contemporary significance and safety established by scientific research.