On Rhetoric Features Of“i Have a Dream”

Introduction

The author makes a clear claim that the technology of genetically modified organisms is useful, but the GMO industry has bungled the job, such as its market failure and its opposition to labeling. However, genetic engineering is our last, best, practical, serious hope for solving the food challenges that face humanity. What we should do is do not lose faith in genetic engineering, but to urge the company to step in standardizing management and using the technology in an ethically responsible manner, as well as solving trustworthy problem such as labeling food.

Summary of Argument

Obviously, the author intends to write to the public and appeals for more confidence and patience in genetic engineering. As is said in last sentence, “genetic engineering is not yet solving the food challenges that face humanity. Despite industry bungling, market failure, and a lot of fearmongering, however, it is our last, best, practical, serious hope.” And the author has made great efforts to connect to readers. At the beginning of the article, the author gives some examples occurred around the world to demonstrate that genetically modified food has had a rough year and show public’s worries about health effects. What’s more, the author even shares his experience shouting at CEOs of GMOs about the ethics on a mountaintop near Lake Geneva in Switzerland. This yelling is exactly what most people want to do and it shows that the author has a good overall sense of justice and fairness. This experience greatly helps the author develop the relationship with readers and earn great trust from them.

Throughout the article, the author use enough evidence to support his claims. Firstly, the author refers to the poll in The New York Times to demonstrate how strongly people are against genetically modified organisms. Secondly, the author directly cites the website address launched by Monsanto to demonstrate the determination of the industry.

However, the author does not take into account a potential counter argument, which is that, is it necessary to develop genetically modified organism technology to get rid of unstoppable plant diseases? Are there any alternatives which are more safer? Obviously, the author does not mention that.

Rhetorical Analysis

Apparently, the author use pathos. For example, “I spent my time at the summit yelling, literally, at the CEO of Monsanto. He was yelling right back at me—neither of us calmed by the beauty of the setting. Or the horrified looks on the faces of other guests.” The author shares this yelling experience to appeal to the reader’s emotions. Obviously, due to the lack of trust and transparency of industry, the public is not satisfied with the CEOs of GMOs. This yelling is exactly what most people want to do and it shows that the author has a good overall sense of justice and fairness. So apparently, the author successfully creates pathetic appeals to connect his claims to reader’s values and triggering positive emotions.

In addition, the author uses ethos. For example, as is written in the article, “I receive no support from food companies or agribusiness. But while at the University of Pennsylvania, I did participate in a project with DuPont to establish a code of ethics for its biotechnology business. That project goes on.” The author shows that he devotes himself to urging the industry to use the technology in an ethically responsible manner and he works for free. This gesture effectively creates a trustworthy image and gain credibility from the readers.