Question

Which is the best comparison of the authors’ purpose in these two essays about genetically modified food?

The purpose of the first essay is to inform; the purpose of the second is to entertain.
The purpose of the first essay is to entertain; the purpose of the second is to persuade.
The purpose of both essays is to persuade the reader of a specific point of view.
The purpose of both essays is to entertain readers with a story about world events.

Read the excerpt from "GM Food: Fuel for Our Future.”

Also, crops can be genetically engineered to be more nutritious. Golden rice, for example, has been altered to have more vitamin A than spinach. This is important because according to Scientific American, "Vitamin A deficiency causes more than one million deaths annually and half a million cases of irreversible blindness in the developing world.” Golden rice alone could help save millions of lives and prevent blindness.

Overall, our growing world desperately needs GM food to survive. The food these crops produce costs less and is safer and more nutritious than anything you could get from a traditional crop. As you can see, the benefits of GM food outweigh the far-fetched, unsubstantiated risks that critics have put forth.

Which phrases from the excerpt support the author’s argument that genetically modified food is safe? Select three options.

more vitamin A
you can see
could help save
traditional crop
unsubstantiated risks
more nutritious

Answer 1

Selected phrases: could help save; unsubstantiated risks; more nutritious.

Why: "unsubstantiated risks" directly downplays dangers (argues they're not real), while "more nutritious" and "could help save" emphasize health benefits and life‑saving potential, supporting the claim that GM foods are safe and beneficial.