Answer:
Number 1 response:
The steps that experience readers can use to analyze conflicting viewpoints and information on the same topic are trying to understand both viewpoints, do their research, and then look at the conflicting viewpoints on the topic again to see their reasoning and evidence more clearly and so they can understand their opinions. It is very important for readers to recognize and evaluate conflicting information because the advantage of this is they won’t have much of an opinion when they must write an informative response because they’ve seen both sides and both arguments and evidence included. Some examples of this helping I will pull from ‘’Say no to genetically engineered salmon’’ and ‘’Genetically modified salmon can feed the world’’ (both from CNN I will leave the links in the bibliography). Let’s say for example you only read ‘’Say no to genetically engineered salmon’’ your information will be sided and you shall have no choice but to write information about one point of view on the topic making you more likely to mistakenly write an opinionated response whilst if you read both ‘’Say no to genetically engineered salmon’’ AND ‘Genetically modified salmon can feed the world’’ you will not only have an easier time to write a nonopinionated response but you will have more evidence and research on the topic from two sources on the same topic.
Number 2 response:
It matters when two authors interpret facts differently because its more informational when two people have different information about the same subject and you can get the topics on both sides of the argument therefore not have an opiniated topic on the matter and being able to write an informative response or essay. Yonathan Zohar believes genetically modified salmon can be of good use while one the other hand Rick Moonen believes otherwise. Zohar’s reasoning for his opinion is that since a great amount of people are going to eat fish more often because of the health benefits workers are spending more time and money to catch more fish, causing the factories to package them to overfill and causing a handful of fish that used to be extremely common to now barely seen in the wild so in solution he want to genetically modify salmon so more people can be feed and less resources are wasted. Moonen’s reasoning for his opinion is that genetically modified food, in general, is bad for you and he believes it's also a tactic to make already big companies more profit.
Number 3 response:
If you include a conflicting point of view and evidence in an argument it can make it more persuasive because lets say you just heard someone say something like ‘’ I think that we should use solar panels from now on anywhere and always no matter what’’, its not much evidence r much of an opinion even but its still a claim. Imagine right after somebody has an opposite opinion like ‘’yes I believe solar panels are more healthy but they’re expensive and if its night time we cant have electricity and if the sun goes dark somehow we will have no power and no way to have light or entertainment or contact’’ its significantly more persuasive because it provides evidence which makes their argument more causing to believe since it seems they know what they are talking about. The effect that the conflicting sides have evidence and fair reasoning can have on readers for people listening can be the fact that they have more information on the topic, that they can understand where both sides are coming from and for readers their response will be a more understanding and informational one and listeners will have more info on the topic like readers. The examples I will pull from ‘’Genetically modified salmon can feed the world’’. Imagine if Yonathon Zohar (the author of ‘genetically modified salmon can feed the world’) just blatantly said I think genetically modified salmon is good for us, no one, would be persuaded to be towards his belief so he put evidence, proof, and reasoning to his viewpoint for example; ‘’ Fish species that used to be plentiful, such as cod, plaice, haddock and others, are now rare in the wild. The king of the oceans, the giant bluefin tuna, is now near the point of no return, its stocks dropping precipitously in the past decade alone.’’ Stating that we are losing our amount of fish because the massive amount of fish we are fishing for food when we can just genetically modify it.
Explanation:
This was on Jiskha, re-word it
