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.
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.
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.
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.
Experienced readers can use several steps to analyze conflicting information in texts about the same topic. First, they should identify the main arguments and claims made by each author. This involves closely reading the texts and noting any evidence or examples used to support their claims. Next, readers should evaluate the credibility and reliability of the authors by considering their qualifications, expertise, and potential biases. They should also examine the sources cited by the authors to determine their validity and relevance. It is important for readers to recognize and evaluate conflicting information because it allows them to form a more informed opinion or make a well-reasoned decision. It encourages critical thinking and helps readers avoid being swayed by persuasive techniques or misinformation. In the case of the texts by Zohar and Moonen, recognizing and evaluating conflicting information is crucial as it enables readers to explore different perspectives on genetically modified salmon. For example, Zohar argues that genetically modified salmon can help address global food scarcity, while Moonen cautions against their potential risks to human health and environment. By analyzing the conflicting viewpoints, readers can better weigh the potential benefits and drawbacks of genetically modified salmon and form an educated opinion.
When two authors interpret the same facts differently, it matters because it can shape readers' understanding and perception of the topic. In the case of Zohar and Moonen, their differing interpretations of the facts on genetically modified salmon can have a significant impact on readers. For instance, Zohar highlights the potential benefits of genetically modified salmon, such as its ability to grow faster and more sustainably, which can help alleviate food shortages. Meanwhile, Moonen emphasizes the potential risks associated with consuming genetically modified salmon, such as allergenicity and the potential for unintended ecological consequences. These differing interpretations can influence readers' trust in the authors and their inclination to accept one viewpoint over the other. Depending on readers' prior knowledge, beliefs, and values, they may feel more convinced by one author's interpretation and therefore form their opinion accordingly. As a reader, the conflicting interpretations push me to critically evaluate the evidence and arguments presented by both authors, enabling me to form a more nuanced and well-rounded understanding of the issue.
Including a conflicting point of view and evidence in an argument can make it more persuasive because it demonstrates the author's awareness of different perspectives and their willingness to engage in a fair and balanced discussion. It also adds credibility to the argument as it shows the author has considered alternative viewpoints and evidence, strengthening their own position. In the case of the texts by Zohar and Moonen, including a conflicting point of view allows readers to see both sides of the debate on genetically modified salmon. Zohar presents the argument in favor of genetically modified salmon and supports his claims with scientific studies and expert testimonies. On the other hand, Moonen presents a counterargument against genetically modified salmon and provides evidence from scientific research and potential risks. By including the conflicting point of view and evidence, readers are exposed to a more comprehensive overview of the topic, leading to a more informed and balanced perspective. It also encourages readers to critically evaluate the arguments and evidence from both sides, promoting intellectual engagement and deepening their understanding of the issue.