Genetically Modified Foods Rhetorical Analysis
The article called Genetically Modified Foods, has a style that is use to grab an audience emotion while still putting some facts. Right away in the first paragraph you will find ethos. Per Pinstrup-Anderson plays a key role in the article, he is the H.E. Babcock Professor of Food, Nutrition and Public Policy at Cornell University. Giving Per Pinstrup-Anderson a creditability, and having the audience attention. This is the only time in the article when ethos is being used to help their argument. In the next two paragraphs, Pathos and logos are used. It shows some facts as well as getting into the audience emotion. The way this was done was by talking about helping farmers in developing countries produce more food, making it more affordable to buy food, as well as not harming the environment. It goes on to say, “Many millions of people do not have access to sufficient calories and many more suffer from micronutrient deficiencies”. Another quote is, “which avoided mass starvation and helped millions out of poverty and hunger”. Notice they never gave an exact statistic on how many people are suffering from poverty and hunger, letting the audience see that it is so many
…show more content…
The only argument made was when Doug Gurian-Sherman of the union of concerned scientist published a studied, “Failure to Yield”. In the study it is closely evaluated on the genetically modified for 20 years to see if they would increase yield or to just see better progress. In the end it showed that the experiment failed to increase yields as well as it failed to engineer crops to be insect-resistant nor herbicide tolerance. In this paragraph it was use ethos and logos. Ethos was Doug Gurian-Sherman and his research study, “Failure to Yield”. Logos was the bits of facts that came from Doug Gurian-Sherman research
The only argument made was when Doug Gurian-Sherman of the union of concerned scientist published a studied, “Failure to Yield”. In the study it is closely evaluated on the genetically modified for 20 years to see if they would increase yield or to just see better progress. In the end it showed that the experiment failed to increase yields as well as it failed to engineer crops to be insect-resistant nor herbicide tolerance. In this paragraph it was use ethos and logos. Ethos was Doug Gurian-Sherman and his research study, “Failure to Yield”. Logos was the bits of facts that came from Doug Gurian-Sherman research