Question

Claim 1: Scientific studies have shown that genetic engineering poses a grave risk to a plant’s genetic integrity. When this integrity is disturbed, the outcome is unpredictable. Dormant toxin levels can be activated in the plant, resulting in permanent damage to entire crops. This phenomenon occurred in StarLink corn, a product engineered to resist pests and that triggered life-threatening reactions in humans who consumed it. Claim 2: Childhood blindness is a huge problem in developing countries. Nutritional deficiencies are usually to blame. That’s bad—horrible, in fact—but it can be avoided. Researchers have developed a variety of rice known as Golden Rice, which produces high levels of beta carotene. Beta carotene’s a godsend when it comes to this terrible problem, a thing of the past. Question Use the passage to answer the question. Compare the two claims above. How does the first claim establish a formal style when compared to the second claim? (1 point) Responses by including real-world examples by including real-world examples by using a third-person perspective by using a third-person perspective by including complex syntax by including complex syntax by using complex vocabulary

Answer 1

The first claim establishes a formal style by using complex vocabulary and syntax, as well as a third-person perspective. For example, it discusses the potential risks of genetic engineering in a scientific context, referencing specific cases like StarLink corn and its consequences, which adds a level of seriousness and formality to the argument. The use of phrases like "genetic integrity" and "dormant toxin levels" also reflects a more sophisticated use of language.

In contrast, the second claim, while addressing a serious issue, employs a more straightforward language and tone. It describes Golden Rice as a solution to childhood blindness without delving into intricate scientific details or potential risks. The focus is on the positive outcome rather than the complexity of the scientific processes involved, making it less formal in its presentation.

Overall, the first claim's formal style is characterized by its emphasis on scientific language, third-person perspective, and complex structure, while the second claim adopts a more accessible and optimistic approach.