Use the page to write a 3 paragraph about genetically modified salmon.
Unit 7 Lesson 9- Analyzing Informational Text Portfolio- Salmon
Key Terms
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 educate, to entertain”
Point of view- 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 reasoning76
Directions: Within Unit 7, 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
Read aloud....Feed the World Y. Zohar
and “Say No to Genetically Engineered Salmon” by Rick Moonen.
Read aloud: Say No....R. Moonen
Use the prompts to guide your response.
Your portfolio must include the following:
-A minimum one paragraph response to each of the questions listed. No introduction or conclusion are needed. You will turn in at least three paragraphs.
-In-text citations when referencing the two articles. Ex. (Zohar) or (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.
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.
Outline for Question 1:
Outline of steps: (1,2,3…) Look for conflicting facts, and both sides for the argument and look for opinions and for omitted facts.
REaders should look for….
Explain why it is important to recognize and evaluate both sides of an argument: ( 1-2 sentences) be aware that opinions affect writings and bias is present
Evidence #1 from Moonen: “insert quote” (Moonen).
Elaborate on #1 Moonen quote:
Evidence #1 from Zohar: “insert quote” (Zohar).
“The AquAdvantage salmon is no different from conventional farmed salmon in its composition and health benefits, and the Food and Drug Administration has concluded that it is safe for people to eat.” (Zohar)
Elaborate on #1 Zohar quote:
Aquadvantage said that modified salmon is pretty much the same salmon as farmed salmon and the FDA has said the salmon is “safe to eat.”
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.
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.
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? (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:
Analyzing conflicting information in texts about genetically modified salmon requires readers to take certain steps. Firstly, readers should look for conflicting facts and opinions in the texts. This involves identifying any differences in information or viewpoints presented by the authors. Additionally, readers should be mindful of any omitted facts or biased language. It is important to recognize and evaluate both sides of an argument because opinions can affect the way information is presented, and biases may be present. For example, in Rick Moonen's article, he argues against genetically engineered salmon by stating that it poses health risks. On the other hand, Yonathan Zohar's article presents the claim that genetically modified salmon is safe to eat and provides evidence from the Food and Drug Administration to support this claim (Zohar). These conflicting interpretations of the facts require readers to weigh the evidence and form their own conclusions.
The differing interpretations of the same facts by the two authors matter because they can influence how readers perceive the information. For instance, Moonen highlights studies that suggest potential health risks associated with genetically engineered salmon (Moonen). This could lead readers to have concerns about consuming this type of salmon. On the other hand, Zohar presents evidence from the FDA that concludes genetically modified salmon is safe for consumption (Zohar). This conflicting interpretation of the health risks can cause confusion and uncertainty for readers. As educated readers, it is important to educate ourselves about conflicting points of view to understand the full picture. By looking for both sides of the argument and carefully evaluating the information presented, readers can make informed decisions.
Including a conflicting point of view and evidence in an argument can make it more persuasive because it demonstrates that the author has considered opposing viewpoints. This can create a sense of fairness and credibility. In the case of genetically modified salmon, Moonen addresses Zohar's argument about its safety by acknowledging that the FDA has approved it for consumption (Moonen). By doing this, Moonen acknowledges the opposing viewpoint and provides evidence to refute it, strengthening his own argument against genetically modified salmon. Similarly, Zohar includes Moonen's argument against genetically engineered salmon in his article and presents evidence to counter it, such as emphasizing the similarities between genetically modified salmon and conventionally farmed salmon (Zohar). By addressing the conflicting point of view and providing evidence to refute it, both authors make their arguments more persuasive to readers. This inclusion of conflicting viewpoints demonstrates a thorough analysis of the topic and increases the overall credibility of the authors' arguments.