The editorial “With GMO Policies, Europe Turns Against Science” by Mark Lynas, is a perfect example of how authors can use rhetorical devices to sway readers into taking the author’s side of an issue. This is a time when many people are concerned with what is in their foods and how healthy their food is for them. Everyday people are debating if foods with Genetically Modified Organisms are the best decision to feed their families or if they should stay with organic and non-GMO foods. The truth surrogates Lynas uses throughout his article is paired with hyperboles and appeals to pathos which effectively convinces the reader that the European Union’s decision to ban GMO’s is unintelligent and will hinder scientific advancements. Throughout
…show more content…
In the case of GMOs, facts could be stretched to better fit what one is trying to convey about them. Hyperboles are very common rhetorical devices used to sway readers into taking the side of the author on an issue. Lynas does use hyperboles to convey the banning of GMOs as a terrible international decision. This over exaggeration is evident when he writes, “The council is worried that Europe’s GMO phobia may slam the door on new technologies,” (Lynas 1). This statement makes it sound like that in the time period when GMOs are banned, no new technology will be able to flourish. This is a clear overstatement because there can definitely be new technology advancements that are not related to GMO technology. Not all new technology has to branch off of GMO technology and this is said to make Lynas’s point more alluring. Lynas further hyperbolizes by adding, “Europe’s stance, if taken up internationally, risks marginalizing a critically important technology that we must surely employ if humanity is to feed itself sustainably in an increasingly difficult and challenging future,” (Lynas 1). This quote sets the tone that if this policy is not revoked and other counties adopt this non-GMO policy, the end all be all result will be devastating to the entire world. The author does not even consider if there could be even one positive effect and highly overstates how much bad this policy will bring. These hyperboles Mark Lynas uses throughout his paper sufficiently convinces readers that the effects of a non-GMO policy will be nothing but
In the case of GMOs, facts could be stretched to better fit what one is trying to convey about them. Hyperboles are very common rhetorical devices used to sway readers into taking the side of the author on an issue. Lynas does use hyperboles to convey the banning of GMOs as a terrible international decision. This over exaggeration is evident when he writes, “The council is worried that Europe’s GMO phobia may slam the door on new technologies,” (Lynas 1). This statement makes it sound like that in the time period when GMOs are banned, no new technology will be able to flourish. This is a clear overstatement because there can definitely be new technology advancements that are not related to GMO technology. Not all new technology has to branch off of GMO technology and this is said to make Lynas’s point more alluring. Lynas further hyperbolizes by adding, “Europe’s stance, if taken up internationally, risks marginalizing a critically important technology that we must surely employ if humanity is to feed itself sustainably in an increasingly difficult and challenging future,” (Lynas 1). This quote sets the tone that if this policy is not revoked and other counties adopt this non-GMO policy, the end all be all result will be devastating to the entire world. The author does not even consider if there could be even one positive effect and highly overstates how much bad this policy will bring. These hyperboles Mark Lynas uses throughout his paper sufficiently convinces readers that the effects of a non-GMO policy will be nothing but