Claim 1: Scientific studies have shown that genetic engineering poses a grave risk to a plant's 1 genetic integrity. When this integrity is disturbed, Compare the two claims above. How does it the outcome is unpredictable. Dormant toxin levels the first claim establish a formal style when can be activated in the plant, resulting in permanent damage to entire crops. This phenomenon occurred in StarLink corn, a product engineered to resist pests and that triggered life-threatening reactions in humans who consumed it.

Question

Claim 2: Childhood blindness is a huge problem in developing countries. Nutritional deficiencies are usually to blame. That’s bad—horrible, in fact—but it can be avoided. Researchers have developed a variety of rice known as Golden Rice, which produces high levels of beta carotene. Beta carotene's a godsend when it comes to this terrible problem, a thing of the past.

Compare the two claims above, how does the first claim establish a formal style when compared to the second claim?

By using complex vocabulary
By including complex syntax
By using a third-person perspective
By including real world examples

Answer 1

The comparison between Claim 1 and Claim 2 reveals distinct differences in formal style. Here's how the two claims differ regarding the specified elements:

1. By using complex vocabulary: Claim 1 employs technical terms such as "genetic engineering," "genetic integrity," and "dormant toxin levels," which contribute to its formal tone. In contrast, Claim 2 uses simpler language to convey its message, referring to "childhood blindness" and "nutritional deficiencies" without delving into specialized terminology.

2. By including complex syntax: Claim 1 features longer, more intricate sentences that incorporate clauses, such as "When this integrity is disturbed, the outcome is unpredictable." This complexity adds to the formality of the style. Claim 2, however, utilizes shorter, more straightforward sentences that make it more accessible and less formal, such as "That’s bad—horrible, in fact—but it can be avoided."

3. By using a third-person perspective: Claim 1 maintains a more objective, third-person perspective, focusing on scientific phenomena and consequences without personal anecdotes or emotional appeals. Claim 2, while still informative, uses a more conversational tone that could be perceived as less formal, emphasizing the urgency of the issue and the positive impact of a solution.

4. By including real-world examples: While both claims reference real-world implications, Claim 1 focuses on the negative consequences of genetic engineering using a specific example (StarLink corn), which highlights its potential risks and establishes credibility. Claim 2 also references a real-world solution (Golden Rice) but does so in a manner that emphasizes hope rather than caution, resulting in a tone that feels more optimistic and less formal.

Overall, Claim 1 establishes a more formal style through its complex vocabulary, syntax, objective perspective, and focused use of real-world examples emphasizing risk, whereas Claim 2 adopts a more straightforward, accessible approach that leans toward a narrative style highlighting solutions.