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
After reviewing the articles "Genetically Modified Salmon Can Feed The World" and "Say No to Genetically Engineered Salmon," I have determined that the excerpt from the article "Genetically Modified Salmon Can Feed The World" presents a stronger argument. The argument seems more effective due to its logical progression, use of scientific evidence, and acknowledgment of counterarguments.
The article "Genetically Modified Salmon Can Feed The World" presents a clear thesis statement that genetically modified salmon can be a feasible solution to helping feed the growing global population. It provides supporting evidence by referencing a study conducted by the National Academy of Sciences, which found that genetically modified salmon grow faster and use resources more efficiently. The article also addresses concerns about genetic modification by emphasizing that extensive testing and regulation ensure the safety of genetically modified organisms before they reach consumers.
In contrast, the article "Say No to Genetically Engineered Salmon" argues against the consumption of genetically engineered salmon. While it does mention potential environmental risks and concerns about consumer health, it lacks evidence and logical organization. For example, the article cites studies that show higher levels of anti-nutrients in genetically engineered salmon, but it fails to provide specific details or sources for these studies. Additionally, the counterarguments presented in the article lack depth, and it does not address the potential benefits of genetically engineered salmon.
Overall, the "Genetically Modified Salmon Can Feed The World" article presents a more persuasive argument by providing concrete evidence, logical reasoning, and addressing potential counterarguments. Its use of scientific studies and acknowledgment of safety regulations helps build credibility and instill confidence in the proposed solution.
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 analyzing the articles, "Genetically Modified Salmon Can Feed The World" and "Say No to Genetically Engineered Salmon," it is evident that the former makes the stronger argument. The article's main point is that genetically modified salmon has the potential to address global food demand and alleviate hunger. It supports this argument by citing scientific experts, such as the National Academy of Sciences, who assert that genetically modified foods are safe for consumption and more efficient in terms of resource utilization. The article also presents concrete examples, such as the success of genetically modified crops like corn and soybeans, to demonstrate the potential benefits of genetically modified salmon. These examples contribute to the effectiveness of the argument by providing real-world evidence of the positive impact of genetic modification.
On the other hand, "Say No to Genetically Engineered Salmon" makes a weaker argument against genetically modified salmon. The article focuses on potential negative impacts on the environment, biodiversity, and human health. However, the argument lacks substantial evidence to support these claims, relying primarily on hypothetical scenarios and generalized fears. For instance, the article raises concerns about genetic contamination of wild salmon populations, but fails to provide concrete examples of this occurring with other genetically modified organisms. By lacking specific evidence and relying on generalized fears, the argument loses credibility and persuasiveness.
Overall, "Genetically Modified Salmon Can Feed The World" makes a more effective argument by utilizing reputable sources and providing concrete examples. These elements enhance the credibility of the argument and make it more convincing to readers. In contrast, "Say No to Genetically Engineered Salmon" lacks the necessary evidence and relies on unfounded fears, weakening its effectiveness in convincing readers.