The first claim establishes an informal style when compared to the second claim by using conversational language. It presents a more casual tone, conveying the idea that the consequences of excessive chemical use are obvious and doesn't require deep analysis. In contrast, the second claim employs a more formal tone with specific statistical evidence and a clear focus on the benefits of genetically modified crops, which reflects a more structured and academic style.
Claim 1: Genetic engineering results in farms that are less environmentally friendly. A large number of genetically modified crops are engineered to be resistant to chemical herbicides. The idea is that chemicals, most of which are highly dangerous, are sprayed with abandon on fields but only kill weeds and undesirable plants—not the GMO crops themselves. It doesn’t take a lot of thought to realize why this is a bad idea. If farmers don’t have to worry about killing their crops, they aren’t going to give a lot of thought to how many chemicals they’re using. Claim 2: Genetic engineering results in farms that are more environmentally friendly. In 2019, about 80 percent of the corn grown in the United States was Bt corn, a genetically modified variety. The chief difference between Bt and standard corn is that this modified crop produces Bacillus thuringiensis, a bacterial insecticide that has reduced the need for chemical pesticides. The use of crops such as these have reduced the amount of chemicals used in fields by over one-third, which in turn boosts the health of soil, air, and local water supplies. Question Use the passage to answer the question. Compare the two claims above. How does the first claim establish an informal style when compared to the second claim? (1 point) Responses by including anecdotal evidence by including anecdotal evidence by avoiding complex syntax by avoiding complex syntax by using conversational language by using conversational language by using a third-person perspective
1 answer