Claim 1: If you have ever eaten anything that has grown in the ground, you’ve almost certainly eaten genetically modified organisms. Genetic engineering has been integral to the human diet for thousands of years, and it’s given us a wider and better variety of foods. Adapting this technology on a wider scale will allow that very positive trend to continue. Claim 2: Over 2,000 scientific studies performed worldwide have shown that genetically modified crops are safe and that they have the potential to enrich the human diet nutritionally, lower the price of food, and end food insecurity in a world where the growing population continues to place a strain on resources. Question Use the passage to answer the question. Compare the two claims above. How do these claims differ from one another? (1 point) Responses Claim 1 takes an affirmative position toward genetically modified foods, while Claim 2 takes a negative position. Claim 1 takes an affirmative position toward genetically modified foods, while Claim 2 takes a negative position. Claim 1 relies solely on anecdotal evidence, while Claim 2 uses a wider range of supporting evidence. Claim 1 relies solely on anecdotal evidence, while Claim 2 uses a wider range of supporting evidence. Claim 1 establishes an informal, conversational style through the use of contractions and point of view. Claim 1 establishes an informal, conversational style through the use of contractions and point of view. Claim 1 establishes a formal, academic style through the use of complex syntax and advanced vocabulary.

asked anonymously

3 months ago

22 views

0

0

1 answer

The two claims differ primarily in the type of evidence and tone they convey. Claim 1 asserts that genetic engineering has historically been beneficial to the human diet and advocates for its continued use. It frames the conversation in a more general and historical context without providing specific data or formal studies.

On the other hand, Claim 2 presents a more research-focused claim, citing over 2,000 scientific studies to assert the safety and potential benefits of genetically modified crops, such as improving nutrition, lowering food prices, and addressing food insecurity. This claim is more formal and evidence-based.

Therefore, the most accurate comparison would be:

Claim 1 relies solely on anecdotal evidence, while Claim 2 uses a wider range of supporting evidence.

answered by GPT-4o mini

0

0

Ask a New Question or answer this question.

Question

Claim 1: If you have ever eaten anything that has grown in the ground, you’ve almost certainly eaten genetically modified organisms. Genetic engineering has been integral to the human diet for thousands of years, and it’s given us a wider and better variety of foods. Adapting this technology on a wider scale will allow that very positive trend to continue. Claim 2: Over 2,000 scientific studies performed worldwide have shown that genetically modified crops are safe and that they have the potential to enrich the human diet nutritionally, lower the price of food, and end food insecurity in a world where the growing population continues to place a strain on resources. Question Use the passage to answer the question. Compare the two claims above. How do these claims differ from one another? (1 point) Responses Claim 1 takes an affirmative position toward genetically modified foods, while Claim 2 takes a negative position. Claim 1 takes an affirmative position toward genetically modified foods, while Claim 2 takes a negative position. Claim 1 relies solely on anecdotal evidence, while Claim 2 uses a wider range of supporting evidence. Claim 1 relies solely on anecdotal evidence, while Claim 2 uses a wider range of supporting evidence. Claim 1 establishes an informal, conversational style through the use of contractions and point of view. Claim 1 establishes an informal, conversational style through the use of contractions and point of view. Claim 1 establishes a formal, academic style through the use of complex syntax and advanced vocabulary.

1 answer

The two claims differ primarily in the type of evidence and tone they convey. Claim 1 asserts that genetic engineering has historically been beneficial to the human diet and advocates for its continued use. It frames the conversation in a more general and historical context without providing specific data or formal studies.

On the other hand, Claim 2 presents a more research-focused claim, citing over 2,000 scientific studies to assert the safety and potential benefits of genetically modified crops, such as improving nutrition, lowering food prices, and addressing food insecurity. This claim is more formal and evidence-based.

Therefore, the most accurate comparison would be:

Claim 1 relies solely on anecdotal evidence, while Claim 2 uses a wider range of supporting evidence.

Ask a New Question or answer this question.

GPT-4o mini · Answer

The two claims differ primarily in the type of evidence and tone they convey. Claim 1 asserts that genetic engineering has historically been beneficial to the human diet and advocates for its continued use. It frames the conversation in a more general and historical context without providing specific data or formal studies.

On the other hand, Claim 2 presents a more research-focused claim, citing over 2,000 scientific studies to assert the safety and potential benefits of genetically modified crops, such as improving nutrition, lowering food prices, and addressing food insecurity. This claim is more formal and evidence-based.

Therefore, the most accurate comparison would be:

Claim 1 relies solely on anecdotal evidence, while Claim 2 uses a wider range of supporting evidence.