Recall what you have learned in this Portfolio to write an analysis of the texts “Genetically Modified Salmon Can Feed the World” by Yonathan Zohar and “Say No to Genetically Engineered Salmon” by Rick Moonen. Use the prompts to guide your response.

Question

Write a paragraph in which you describe the steps that experienced readers can use to analyze conflicting information in texts about the same topic. Explain why it is important for readers to recognize and evaluate conflicting information. Provide specific examples from the two texts.
Write a paragraph in which you explain why it matters when the two authors interpret the same facts differently. Using specific examples from the two texts, describe the impact of the authors’ differing interpretations of the facts on you as a reader.
Write a paragraph in which you explain how including a conflicting point of view and evidence in an argument can make it more persuasive. Describe the effect that including a conflicting point of view and evidence can have on readers. Give specific examples.

Answer 1

Analyzing Conflicting Information

Experienced readers can adopt several key steps to analyze conflicting information in texts discussing the same topic. First, they should identify the main arguments presented by each author, noting how they position themselves on the issue. Next, they can summarize the evidence each author provides to support their claims and assess the credibility of that evidence. It is also essential for readers to consider the motivations and backgrounds of the authors, as these factors can influence their perspectives. Finally, reflecting on potential biases—whether in the choice of language, tone, or the presentation of evidence—can provide valuable insight into conflicting information. Recognizing and evaluating such discrepancies is crucial for readers because it allows them to engage with the material more critically and form a well-rounded understanding of the topic. For instance, in "Genetically Modified Salmon Can Feed the World," Yonathan Zohar emphasizes the potential benefits of genetically modified salmon, arguing that they can address hunger issues and offer a sustainable food source, whereas Rick Moonen in "Say No to Genetically Engineered Salmon" highlights health risks and environmental concerns, suggesting that these engineered fish pose more harm than good.

Differing Interpretations of Facts

The differing interpretations of the same facts by both authors matter significantly because they shape readers' perceptions and decisions about genetically modified salmon. Zohar interprets the technological advancements and nutritional benefits of genetically modified salmon as essential for combating global food shortages. For example, he cites the efficiency of production in terms of resource usage, implying that this could lead to less environmental strain. In contrast, Moonen argues that the risks of cross-contamination with wild salmon and potential negative health impacts outweigh the benefits. He emphasizes that consumers deserve to know what they eat, advocating for clear labeling of genetically engineered products. As a reader, encountering these opposing views prompted me to reflect critically on the implications of choosing genetically modified food sources. It highlighted the need for a balanced evaluation of the advancements in biotechnology alongside the ethical and health-related concerns they provoke.

Impact of Including Conflicting Perspectives

Including a conflicting point of view and evidence in an argument significantly enhances its persuasiveness. When an author acknowledges opposing perspectives, it demonstrates an understanding of the complexity surrounding the issue, lending credibility to their argument. For instance, Zohar addresses potential criticisms regarding environmental impacts by discussing regulatory measures that could mitigate risks, which reinforces his credibility by showing that he considers broader implications. Meanwhile, Moonen's inclusion of scientific studies supporting health concerns offers robust evidence for his stance, engaging readers who might be skeptical of genetically engineered food. By presenting these conflicting perspectives, both authors invite readers to weigh various factors, enhancing the overall depth and richness of the discussion. This approach not only fosters critical thinking but also empowers readers to make informed decisions based on a comprehensive understanding of the issue at hand.