Which argument did you find more compelling? Why? Did your view change over the course of your analysis? Answer this prompt in at least 1 well-developed paragraph. from “Say No to Genetically Engineered Salmon” by Rick Moonen and from “Genetically Modified Salmon Can Feed the World” by Yonathan Zohar

Question

Begins with a topic sentence that TTQA (The argument I find more compelling is…)
Elaborates on your topic sentence claim and qualifies your ideas with evidence from the paragraphs
At least 2 summarized examples with 2 sentence commentary
At least 1 quote that is properly introduced with 1 sentence commentary
Acknowledges the counterargument and if you changed your mind about the topic (Others may believe…; However, . . .) (My viewpoint on this issue did/did not change because…)
Is at least 8 sentences long
Uses correct capitalization and punctuation. 6 grade words

Answer 1

The argument I find more compelling is presented by Rick Moonen in “Say No to Genetically Engineered Salmon.” Moonen emphasizes the potential risks of introducing genetically modified salmon into our ecosystems and food supply. He argues that these fish could negatively impact wild salmon populations, as they might compete for resources, breed with them, and create unpredictable consequences in nature. For instance, Moonen mentions that genetically engineered salmon could grow much faster than their wild counterparts, leading to a survival disadvantage for the native species. Additionally, he states that people's health could be at risk due to a lack of long-term studies on the effects of consuming genetically engineered foods. Moonen asserts, “We are playing with the delicate balance of our ecosystems, and for what?” This highlights the serious ethical concerns surrounding the manipulation of nature for profit. On the other hand, some may argue that genetically modified salmon could help feed the growing global population by providing a more efficient food source. However, I believe that the risks associated with genetically engineered salmon are too significant to ignore. My viewpoint did not change because the potential negative impacts on health and biodiversity outweigh the possible benefits of feeding more people.