Genetically Modified Crops Rhetorical Analysis

Rhetorical Analysis A paper that I have written called, “To Modify or not to Modify?: An Argument for Genetically Modified Crops”, presents an argument in support of GM crops. In order to investigate the quality of the paper, I will analyze my own writing. Here I will look back on my writing, and give an rhetorical analysis regarding the persuasiveness of my argument, as well as the effects of the argument on others.
The main argument of the paper defended the safety of genetically modified organisms to the health of animals and people. Like many things, genetic modification may have the potential to cause harm, but evaluations and testing prevent any dangerous foods from going on the market. Genetic modification could also bring many benefits. These include the creation of healthier and cheaper crops. Overall, the use of GM foods has the same amount of risk involved as that of conventionally grown foods. I used these facts in order to create a persuasive argument. Someone would find the argument persuasive because of the data I …show more content…
However, evidence does not show much support for the “toxicity” of genetically modified crops. Companies, independent scientists, and organizations have done thousands of studies, some of which I cited in my paper, in search any health risks in GMOs. Not only that, many major scientific and medical organizations have supported GMO, and the billions of livestock consuming them show no negative effects. My paper contains well researched evidence in order to persuade others. However, the weakest part of the argument in my opinion, may not have done this as well. This would consist of the section in which I explain Gilles-Éric Séralini faulty tests. Here, the original intention of showing how feeding test seldom show negative results, but misinterpretation of this as an attempt to simply discredit the other side of the argument could