An experienced reader should take the following steps when analyzing two conflicting articles about the same topic. Step one is to identify the author of each article and assess their credibility. For example, Yonathan Zohar, the author of “Genetically Modified Salmon Can Feed the World,” is a recognized expert in marine biotechnology, which lends credibility to his assertions about genetically modified salmon (Zohar). Step two involves investigating the source of publication; both articles are published by notable outlets but may cater to different audiences and ideologies. Step three is to evaluate any organizations or groups connected to the publication or the authors, as this may reveal potential biases. For instance, Zohar’s article presents a pro-GMO stance, which may be influenced by industry interests. Step four is to consider the publication dates. Timely articles may provide more relevant data, while older articles could reference outdated information. Finally, step five involves critically evaluating the arguments presented. For example, Moonen argues against genetically modified organisms by stating, “This engineered salmon threatens the entire ecology of the wild salmon population” (Moonen). This statement highlights concerns about environmental impact, which warrants serious consideration. Recognizing and evaluating both sides of an argument is vital, as it allows readers to form a well-rounded understanding of the issue. For example, Zohar asserts, “Genetically modified salmon can provide a sustainable food source without depleting wild populations” (Zohar), which emphasizes the potential benefits that are crucial to consider against alternative viewpoints.
One of the critical aspects of evaluating conflicting information is analyzing the presented evidence in each article. In Moonen’s piece, he claims, “The long-term effects of eating genetically modified salmon have not been studied” (Moonen). This statement raises valid concerns about food safety, which should prompt readers to question the thoroughness of existing research on GMOs. Moreover, Zohar contends, “Studies have shown that genetically modified salmon grow faster and require less food, which is essential for feeding a growing global population” (Zohar). While this presents a compelling argument for adopting GMO salmon as a viable solution to food scarcity, it is essential to assess how comprehensive and current these studies are. Evaluating such evidence from both articles allows readers to discern gaps in research and differing perspectives on the implications of genetically modified salmon. As readers analyze these claims, they must ask themselves if the evidence is backed by sufficient research and whether opposing viewpoints, as expressed by Moonen, challenge or support this evidence effectively.
Lastly, it is crucial to consider the broader implications and motivations behind the authors’ arguments. For instance, Moonen concludes with a strong emotional appeal, stating, “We must protect our oceans and the generations to come by rejecting genetically engineered salmon” (Moonen). This emotional impact is effective in invoking a sense of responsibility among readers. On the other hand, Zohar discusses the economic potential, arguing, “Investing in biotechnology can lead to breakthroughs that not only feed people but also enhance job creation” (Zohar). While both arguments present valid points, it is essential for readers to evaluate the underlying purposes of the authors’ positions. Understanding whether the authors' motivations are grounded in environmental ethics or economic benefits can lead to greater insight into the overall debate. Consequently, readers who recognize these motivations and evaluate the arguments critically will be better equipped to navigate the complexities of the issue surrounding genetically modified salmon, including the potential consequences for consumers, ecosystems, and the future of food production.