Ads

The way an argument is presented is an extremely powerful tool in putting forth the opinion. That having been said, the two pictures in the book were presented in two very different ways, although they were both criticizing the "other side". The comic presents a moral dilemma, and creates an animosity toward the man with the corn, making the point that witholding genetically engineered foods is witholding food for the poor. This is valid, seeing as another part of the argument is that there isn't enough food in the world without genetically engineering it. This argument isnt nessecarily true, because the fact that people can't get food has more to do with money and the way things are produced than sheer numbers, but that's beside the point. The other picture in the book was an ad against genetically engineering food; or at least informing people what is in their food. Personally I think that it is realistic and should be required that all food states what is in it (I think by this time it might be required, though I'm not sure), but although the argument isn't as strong as the opposite side, it presents a more realistic and more accurate point. For argument's sake, comic on page 1 is stronger, because it really does make the reader stop and think- however, the strongest argument isn't nessecarily the correct one, which is why it is always good that both sides are looked at impartially.