Key Terms

Question

Interpret- to understand and explain information or an idea.
Author’s purpose- the reason an author writes a text. Must have a verb. “To explain, to inform, to persuade, to inform/educate, to entertain” PIE
Point of view/ Perspective- opinion
Conflicting point of view- an opposing opinion about a topic
Argument- a claim, position, or idea supported by reasons and backed up with evidence.
Claim- statement of opinion
Reasons- statements in support of a claim
Evidence- something that provides proof for a claim

Refute- assert that an idea is weak or incorrect
Conclusion- judgments based on reasoning

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.

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

Genetically modified salmon can feed the world (Google doc)
Genetically modified salmon can feed the world (PDF)

Say no to genetically engineered salmon (Google doc)
Say no to genetically engineered salmon (PDF)

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.

Cone 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…) An experienced reader should take the following steps when analyzing two articles. Step one, identify the author of the article. Step two, identify the source, both are CNN. Step 3, look for ads or groups behind the author. Step 4, look at publication dates. Step 5, updated data and articles.
Explain why it is important to recognize and evaluate both sides of an argument: ( 1-2 sentences) .
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 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.

Cone 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)
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.

Cone 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) .
Describe the effect including a conflicting point of view can have on us as the readers. ( 1-2 sentences)
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:
(Make the paragraphs 5 sentences long please)

Answer 1

Question 1: Analyzing Conflicting Information in Texts

To effectively analyze conflicting information in two articles about the same topic, an experienced reader can follow several steps. First, it is essential to identify the author of each article, as the author’s expertise and credibility can influence the information presented. Next, readers should consider the source of the articles; both "Genetically Modified Salmon Can Feed the World" and "Say No to Genetically Engineered Salmon" were published by reputable organizations, CNN, ensuring a level of reliability. Third, it is crucial to investigate any potential biases by looking for ads or organizations that may influence the authors' stances. Additionally, evaluating the publication dates can provide context regarding the relevance or timeliness of the information presented. Lastly, readers should check for updated data or articles to ensure they are working with the most current information. Recognizing and evaluating both sides of an argument is important because it allows readers to develop a well-rounded understanding of the issue. For example, Rick Moonen argues that genetically engineered salmon may pose environmental risks, stating, “The impact on wild fish populations is a critical concern” (Moonen). Conversely, Yonathan Zohar supports genetically modified salmon for its potential to reduce overfishing pressures, stating, “These salmon can be produced sustainably and efficiently” (Zohar).

Question 2: The Importance of Differing Interpretations

When authors interpret the same facts differently, it matters to the reader because it highlights how bias can shape understanding and influence opinions. For instance, Moonen raises concerns about the long-term effects of consuming genetically modified organisms, claiming, “There is still much we do not know about the health implications” (Moonen). In contrast, Zohar emphasizes safety and the benefits of genetic modification, insisting, “Regulatory bodies have extensively evaluated these salmon for safety” (Zohar). Such differing interpretations can lead readers to question the validity of the information and consider the perspectives of both authors more critically. Additionally, Moonen cites potential ecological risks, stating, “These fish could disrupt local ecosystems” (Moonen), whereas Zohar counters this argument by mentioning advancements in monitoring technology to mitigate risks, asserting, “Innovations can ensure ecological safety” (Zohar). As a reader, recognizing these differences forces one to engage more deeply with the topic and encourages informed decision-making based on a balanced understanding.

Question 3: The Persuasiveness of Addressing Conflicting Viewpoints

Addressing a conflicting point of view can significantly enhance the persuasiveness of an argument. By acknowledging opposing perspectives, an author demonstrates trustworthiness and reliability, which can build credibility with the audience. For example, Moonen discusses Zohar’s perspective by acknowledging, “Proponents suggest that genetically modified salmon can feed the world” (Moonen), but he counters this by emphasizing the potential risks involved. This strategy allows Moonen to present a more balanced view while reinforcing his own argument. On the other hand, Zohar includes Moonen’s concerns to illustrate his awareness of the debate surrounding genetically modified organisms, stating that “while risks are a concern, the benefits for global food security cannot be overlooked” (Zohar). This acknowledgment shows that Zohar is not dismissing opposing viewpoints, which can foster a deeper understanding and respect from the audience. By addressing each other's arguments, both authors create a more engaging and thoughtful dialogue that enriches the reader's experience and understanding of the complexities surrounding genetically modified salmon.