Claim 1: Genetic engineering results in farms that are less environmentally friendly. A large number of genetically modified crops are engineered to be

Question

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.

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?

by using a third-person perspective

by using conversational language

by including anecdotal evidence

by avoiding complex syntax

Answer 1

The first claim establishes an informal style when compared to the second claim by using conversational language and anecdotal evidence. Claim 1 uses phrases like "It doesn’t take a lot of thought to realize why this is a bad idea," which is more conversational than the more formal tone of Claim 2. Additionally, Claim 1 includes anecdotal evidence about farmers not giving thought to how many chemicals they're using, which adds a more informal touch compared to the more factual and technical information presented in Claim 2.