C. The article presents a balanced view of the debate about labeling genetically engineered foods. It examines the claim that genetically engineered foods are as safe as organic foods and then examines claims to the contrary.
For something to be objective means that it should be free from opinion—it should, thus, be free of analysis. If we look at Options A, B, and D, we see that they all have the word “purpose” in them. Upon close review, we can see that those options try to interpret or analyze the meaning of the text by claiming to know the purpose; however, this prevents them from being objective. To be objective is to only state the facts and to avoid trying to determine what a text is about, and this is what Option C does.
C. The article presents a balanced view of the debate about labeling genetically engineered foods. It examines the claim that genetically engineered foods are as safe as organic foods and then examines claims to the contrary.
Explanation:
The article is meant to present a reasonable and balanced view of the debate surrounding genetically modified foods. The text begins by examining the idea that these foods are just as safe as foods that are traditionally bred. It also cites evidence for this opinion. On the other hand, the second section of the text examines the argument that GMOs are more dangerous than traditional foods, and presents the available evidence along with its potential shortcomings.
