Directions: Within Unit 3 , lessons 1-8 have prepared you to complete a piece of analytical writing. Recall what you have learned in this portfolio to write an analysis of the texts, “Genetically Modified Salmon Can Feed the World” by Yonathan Zohar and “Say No to Genetically Engineered Salmon” by Rick Moonen. Use the prompts to guide your response.

Question

Audio Recording of “Genetically Modified Salmon Can Feed the World”.
Audio Recording of “Say No to Genetically Engineered Salmon”

Your portfolio must include the following:
-A minimum one paragraph response to each of the questions listed below. No introduction or conclusion are needed. You will turn in at least three paragraphs.
-This assignment is NOT a compare and contrast between the two articles. This assignment is NOT asking for your opinion, or for you to pick which article is more persuasive.
-In-text citations when referencing the two articles. Ex. (Zohar) or (Moonen) According to Moonen, “dfdsfjds”. “Dsfsdlfj” (Moonen)

Textbook Directions:Write a paragraph in which you describe the steps that experienced readers can use to analyze conflicting information in texts about the same topic. Explain why it is important for readers to recognize and evaluate conflicting information. Provide specific examples from the two texts.

Reworded Directions: As to not be fooled into believing everything you read, what should you look for in the article before you view it as reliable/credible/believable? Look at the text features, such as titles and subtitles. Look at the publication itself. Who published it? Is there an organization or group behind the publication? Who is the author? Are they reliable? What does that group represent? Is the author getting paid to write this? Are their multiple viewpoints published? Ask questions as you read. Is this a logical argument? Is there anything the author is leaving out?

Your paragraph should outline the steps you would take to decide if the author’s words are believable. You can number the steps within your paragraph. Explain why it is important to recognize and evaluate both sides to an argument. Provide at least two examples from both texts.

Sentence Starters for Citing and Explaining Text Evidence

Outline for Question 1:

Outline of steps: (1,2,3…) Look for conflicting facts, and both sides for the argument and look for opinions and for omitted facts.
REaders should look for….
Step 1- Readers should look into who the author is and if the author is reliable. Step 2- readers should look at the publication date to see if the article needs updating. Step 3- Readers should find out if the author is being paid to write the article.
Explain why it is important to recognize and evaluate both sides of an argument: ( 1-2 sentences) It is important to recognize both sides of an argument so that you and other readers can understand the entire situation. It helps people make wiser, more educated decisions about voting, products, and etc.
Evidence #1 from Moonen: “insert quote” (Moonen).
Elaborate on #1 Moonen quote: This quote proves Moonen is …….
Evidence #1 from Zohar: “insert quote” (Zohar).

Elaborate on #1 Zohar quote:

Evidence #2 from Moonen: “insert quote” (Moonen).
Elaborate on #2 Moonen quote:
Evidence #2 from Zohar: “insert quote” (Zohar).
Elaborate on #2 Zohar quote:

Textbook Directions:Write a paragraph in which you explain why it matters when the two authors interpret the same facts differently. Using specific examples from the two texts, describe the impact of the authors’ differing interpretations of the facts on you as a reader.

Reworded Directions: Is the information really conflicting, or have the authors focused on different facts? Authors look at the same fact or statistic and present it in a different way in order to help their argument. Has this happened in either of the passages? Is the information misleading or incomplete? Why should you as an educated reader educate yourself about conflicting points of view? What should the reader look for in order to understand both points of view? Find examples from the two passages where the authors use the same information but in different ways to enhance their own argument.

Outline for Question 2:
Why does it matter to the reader when two authors interpret information differently? ( 1-2 sentences) It matter to the reader when author’s use information differently because the author’s might be lying. The author’s could the data to persuade the reader to believe one thing over another, but it might not be true. By reading both sides, the reader can identify the truth.
Evidence #1 from Moonen: “insert quote” (Moonen).
Elaborate on #1 Moonen quote:
Evidence #1 from Zohar: “insert quote” (Zohar).
Elaborate on #1 Zohar quote:
Evidence #2 from Moonen: “insert quote” (Moonen).
Elaborate on #2 Moonen quote:
Evidence #2 from Zohar: “insert quote” (Zohar).
Elaborate on #2 Zohar quote:

Textbook Directions:Write a paragraph in which you explain how including a conflicting point of view and evidence in an argument can make it more persuasive. Describe the effect that including a conflicting point of view and evidence can have on readers. Give specific examples.

Reworded Directions: Why is it beneficial to address the conflicting point of view? Author “A” believes Cake is best. Author “B” believes Pie is best. Why would it be beneficial for Author A to discuss Pie in their argument? What could Author A say about Pie that would help the Cake argument. Find examples from the Salmon articles where both author’s include each other’s arguments. IE. When Moonen brings up Zohar’s perspectives and when Zohar brings up Moonen’s perspective. Provide examples from the text.

Outline for Question 3:
Why is it beneficial to address the conflicting point of view? It is beneficial to bring up the opponent’s point of view because it shows the author as trustworthy, reliable, and educated about the topic. This shows the author is presenting the truth and not trying to deceive or cover up information.(1-2 sentences)
How does including a conflicting point of view and evidence make for a more persuasive argument? (1-2 sentences) . Readers believe author’s who include a conflicting argument because it proves they are more knowledgeable about the topic.
Describe the effect including a conflicting point of view can have on us as the readers. ( 1-2 sentences) Readers will believe the author who appears more trustworthy.
Evidence #1 from Moonen: “insert quote” (Moonen).
Elaborate on #1 Moonen quote:
Evidence #1 from Zohar: “insert quote” (Zohar).
Elaborate on #1 Zohar quote:
Evidence #2 from Moonen: “insert quote” (Moonen).
Elaborate on #2 Moonen quote:
Evidence #2 from Zohar: “insert quote” (Zohar).
Elaborate on #2 Zohar quote:

Answer 1

Steps to Analyze Conflicting Information in Texts

When analyzing conflicting information in texts, readers should take several steps to ensure they are evaluating the arguments critically. First, readers should research the background of the author to determine if they are reliable and have expertise on the subject matter (Step 1). For instance, if an article about genetically modified salmon is authored by a leading biologist (like Yonathan Zohar), they may provide more credible insights compared to someone without relevant qualifications (such as Rick Moonen, a chef). Second, checking the publication date is important, as older articles may lack updated scientific findings (Step 2). Lastly, it is crucial to identify any potential biases, such as whether the author is being compensated by an organization that has a vested interest in the topic (Step 3). For example, if Zohar's article is sponsored by a biotechnology firm, it might present a more favorable view of genetically modified organisms. Recognizing and evaluating both sides of an argument is essential to make informed decisions; it allows readers to understand the whole situation and not fall victim to one-sided narratives. Moonen emphasizes the potential environmental harm of genetically modified salmon by stating, “We cannot risk the integrity of our ecosystems” (Moonen). This demonstrates his concern about potential consequences of such biotechnology. In contrast, Zohar argues, “Genetically modified salmon can significantly reduce our reliance on wild fish stocks” (Zohar), showcasing how biotech can address food security. Both perspectives illuminate different aspects of the same issue, highlighting the need to weigh their arguments.

Importance of Differing Interpretations of Facts

The differing interpretations of the same facts by the two authors matter to readers because they may reveal biases and different priorities in their arguments. When Moonen discusses the environmental risks associated with genetically engineered salmon, he states, “This technology poses a threat to native fish populations” (Moonen). In contrast, Zohar references the same potential risks but frames them within a context of mitigating overfishing: “By reducing pressure on wild fish populations, we can preserve marine biodiversity” (Zohar). This kind of selective presentation of facts can mislead readers or create an incomplete understanding of the topic, prompting the need for education on both viewpoints. Furthermore, as an educated reader, it is vital to compare these interpretations to discern truth from exaggeration or omission. This evaluation might prevent readers from forming opinions based solely on one article's perspective, which could be misleading. Both authors provide their interpretations based on the same issue but approach it from different angles, emphasizing the complex nature of scientific discourse.

The Benefits of Addressing Conflicting Points of View

Including conflicting points of view enhances an argument's persuasiveness by demonstrating the author's comprehensive understanding of the topic and mitigating the perception of bias. When Zohar acknowledges concerns raised by opponents of genetically modified salmon, he states, “While some argue that these fish could interbreed with wild populations, careful regulations can prevent this” (Zohar). This acknowledgment shows that he is not dismissing opposing views outright but rather addressing them thoughtfully. Moonen, on the other hand, strengthens his argument against genetically modified foods by mentioning that “the long-term effects are still unknown, raising valid concerns” (Moonen). By presenting these counterarguments, both authors improve their credibility and appeal to readers who may have reservations about the subject. This practice also impacts readers by making them more likely to trust authors who engage with differing perspectives, as it indicates that the authors are knowledgeable rather than attempting to hide behind a one-sided narrative. Therefore, by addressing conflicting points of view, authors enhance their arguments' validity and encourage justified belief among readers, ultimately fostering an informed public discourse.