In analyzing the arguments presented in the articles "Genetically Modified Salmon Can Feed the World" and "Say No to Genetically Engineered Salmon," the former seems to present a more compelling case. The first article emphasizes the pressing issue of global food shortages and highlights how genetically modified (GM) salmon could provide a sustainable solution. It cites examples of increased fish productivity and less environmental impact compared to traditional farming methods. In contrast, the second article raises concerns about the potential risks of GM salmon, including ecological imbalance and unpredicted health consequences for consumers. While both arguments have merit, the positive framing and quantitative data provided in the first article bolster its effectiveness. For instance, the mention of growing fish populations at a fraction of the resources needed for conventional aquaculture provides a pragmatic perspective on food security. Additionally, the call for innovation in sustainable practices resonates strongly with the current global climate. In contrast, the fear-based approach of the second article, while important, does not offer as actionable a solution, making the argument less persuasive. Ultimately, the proactive nature and supportive data in the first article make it the stronger argument.
And 5 to 10 sentences explain a short analysis of the Articles genetically modified salmon can feed the world and say no to genetically engineered salmon based upon discussions and answering these questions in paragraph form which excerpt makes the better argument what makes us argument seem more effective you specific examples from both articles to support your analysis
1 answer