In our class discussion, we analyzed the articles "Genetically Modified Salmon Can Feed The World" and "Say No to Genetically Engineered Salmon." After examining the arguments presented in both articles, it can be argued that "Genetically Modified Salmon Can Feed The World" makes a stronger case. This article uses a more logical and evidence-based approach, supporting its claims with specific examples and scientific research.
One aspect that makes the argument in "Genetically Modified Salmon Can Feed The World" more effective is its use of scientific studies to back up its claims. For example, the article cites a study conducted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that concluded genetically modified salmon is as safe to eat as conventional salmon. This specific evidence adds credibility to the argument and strengthens the reader's trust in the author's claims.
Furthermore, the article supports its argument with concrete examples of how genetically modified salmon can address the issue of hunger worldwide. It mentions that genetically modified salmon grow faster and larger than conventional salmon, which means they can lead to increased fish production and subsequently provide more food for a growing global population. By providing these specific examples, the article makes a compelling case for the potential benefits of genetically modified salmon.
On the other hand, the argument in "Say No to Genetically Engineered Salmon" appears less convincing. It heavily relies on emotional appeals and fear-based language without providing substantial evidence or logical reasoning. For instance, the author claims that genetically engineered salmon could be "Frankenfish" that could have negative effects on human health. However, no concrete evidence or scientific studies are presented to support this claim.
Additionally, the article does not provide alternative solutions to global hunger or address the potential benefits of genetically modified salmon. It simply focuses on portraying genetically engineered salmon as dangerous and unnatural without considering the potential advantages it might offer.
In conclusion, "Genetically Modified Salmon Can Feed The World" makes a more convincing argument due to its use of scientific evidence, logical reasoning, and specific examples. By presenting well-supported claims and addressing the potential benefits of genetically modified salmon, this article successfully argues in favor of using biotechnology to address global hunger. On the other hand, "Say No to Genetically Engineered Salmon" relies more on emotional appeals and fear tactics, weakening its overall argument.
In 5-10 sentences, explain your short analysis of the articles, Genetically Modified Salmon Can Feed The World and Say No to Genetically Engineered Salmon based upon our class discussion by answering these questions in paragraph form: Which excerpt makes the better argument? what makes this argument seem more effective? use specific examples from both articles to support your analysis
1 answer
1 answer