Name:<\/p>\n
Professor:<\/p>\n
Course:<\/p>\n
Date:<\/p>\n
A Rhetorical Analysis of David Freedman\u2019s, \u201cAre Engineered Foods Evil?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cTo eat or not to eat?\u201d The subject of Genetically Engineered Foods is one that is shrouded with controversy. The dispute involves numerous groups such as consumers, farmers, biotechnology companies, scientists, politicians, government regulatory organizations, and even religious groups, all who contribute to conflicting sides of the argument. In his article, \u201cAre Engineered Foods Evil?\u201d science journalist and author David H. Freedman, tackles this debate by analyzing evidence from advocates and critics of Genetically Modified Foods, weighing the risks and benefits, and finally comes up with a clear solution of this dilemma. Freedman employs a more informative and defensive tone and rhetorical devices when discussing pro-GM arguments to convince his audience that genetically modified foods are not harmful but rather have multiple advantages.<\/p>\n
In his article, Freedman does not rely on emotional appeal to persuade the reader but employs logos to support genetically modified foods. He uses statistical evidence from credible scientists and renowned bodies such as Robert Goldberg, Gregory Jaffe, Alan Mcguhen, David Zilberman, the USDA, and the European Commission to support his claim. For instance, Freedman states that the European Commission, \u201chas funded 130 research projects carried out by 500 independent teams, on the safety of GM crops. None of these studies found any special risks for GM crops\u201d (Freedman,633). He strengthens this argument on the safety of genetically modified foods by stressing Alan McHughen\u2019s viewpoint, \u201cUnder current testing standards for GM- crops, most conventionally bred crops wouldn\u2019t have made it to the market\u201d(Freedman,633). Freedman uses viewpoints from anti-GM scientists who are not as credible to weaken the argument against genetically modified foods. For instance, he points out that David Schubert, an \u201cAlzheimer researcher\u201d describes that a switched gene, \u201ccan go forward, backward, at different locations, in multiple copies, and they all do different things\u201d (Freedman, 636). By intentionally quoting Schubert\u2019s job and vague words, he renders him a barely credible as a scientist and source. Freedman, therefore, ensures that there is internal consistency in his argument for genetically modified foods by using research and data from credible scientists and reputable organizations to support his claim and simultaneously discredits the counterargument indirectly.<\/p>\n
Freedman aims to establish his ethos by taking care to show both sides of the debate on genetically modified foods. He appeals to character by trying to portray his objectivity and impartiality on the matter. However, a keen reader notices that he mainly argues for genetically modified foods and uses the anti-GM analysis as a counterargument. Despite his intentions, the fact that he shows opposing sides of the issue before explaining his thesis establishes his credibility. His career as a science journalist also convinces the reader to rely on his reputation of providing information on scientific matters. However, his career is not as persuasive since journalists are known to take on different stances based on their employers.<\/p>\n
What Freedman lacks in ethos and pathos, he compensates in diction. Freedman persuades the audience by employing well-chosen diction that illustrates the power of words in creating a specific tone. By using certain words, Freedman strengthens his case for genetically modified foods and weakens the counterargument that is against genetically modified foods. The title for instance, \u201cAre engineered foods evil? Has moral and religious connotations. The term \u2018evil\u2019 is not consistent with the scientific diction he applies. Words that would have been more compatible with the text include dangerous, harmful, or detrimental. He therefore implicitly implies that the opponents of genetically modified foods base their arguments on moral or religious grounds rather than scientific ones. The use of phrases such as \u201cexasperating\u201d \u201cexonerating evidence\u201d \u201cPERSISTENT DOUBTS\u201d, \u201cA CLEAN RECORD\u201d and \u201cBut as medical researchers know, nothing can really be \u201cproved safe.\u201d (Freedman, 633, 630, 631,).One can only fail to turn up significant risk after trying hard to find it-as is the case with GM crops.\u201d His diction proves that he wholly supports genetically modified foods and aims to convince the reader into supporting them too.<\/p>\n
In conclusion, the fact that Freedman provides both sides of the argument does not portray his impartiality, but rather, his attempts to give a \u2018balanced standpoint\u2019 contribute to false equivalency fallacy. He uses this to his advantage to get his point across, that is, by giving both sides of the debate, he paints himself as \u2018impartial\u2019. However, he strongly argues for genetically modified foods and weakly advocates against the foods. He strongly relies on logos and persuasive diction to persuade his audience into supporting the adoption of genetically modified foods. This works in his favor, because from a reader\u2019s perspective, genetically modified foods \u2018win\u2019.<\/p>\n
Works Cited<\/p>\n
BIBLIOGRAPHY Freedman, David H. “Are Engineered Foods Evil?” Lunsford, Andrea A. Everything’s An Argument: With Readings. Boston: Bedford, 2018. 630-638. Print.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Name: Professor: Course: Date: A Rhetorical Analysis of David Freedman\u2019s, \u201cAre Engineered Foods Evil?\u201d \u201cTo eat or not to eat?\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-52175","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"yoast_head":"\n