Evaluating an Argument:

By splicing genes into crop plants, scientists

have changed these crops in ways that never
could have come about through the natural
process of selective breeding. These changes
in our food crops threaten the health of
everyone in the world, and impose a great
danger of massive environmental damage.
Genetically modified crops are unnatural and
dangerous. We should avoid using them and
growing them, and should do whatever it takes
to eliminate them from Iowa farms.

Questions:
What

is the author of this passage trying

to persuade you to believe? (Whats the
conclusion?)
What reasons are being offered? (What
are the premises?)
In this argument there are few indicator
words used, but it is not hard to figure out
what the author would like us to believe.

Whats the Conclusion?

Conclusion: Often the conclusion of an argument is

stated either in the first sentence of a paragraph, or in
the last sentence of the paragraph. In this case, the
conclusionthe claim the author intends to persuade us
to acceptis a complex claim. The author urges that:

(1) We should avoid using and growing genetically

modified crops, and
(2) We should do whatever it takes to eliminate these
crops from Iowa farms.

Whats evidence or reasons are given?

Premises:

P1) Gene splicing changes crops in ways that could never

have come about through selective breeding.
P2) Changes in food crops due to gene splicing threaten
everyones health.
P3) Changes in food crops pose a threat of massive
environmental damage.
P4) Genetic modification of crops is unnatural.
P5) Genetic modification of crops is dangerous.

Step One: Are the premises true?

Premise 1: Gene splicing changes crops in ways that

never could have come about through selective
breeding.

Evaluation: Is this true? Some of the properties that

have been induced through genetic engineering might
have been produced through selective breeding. But it
is unlikely that the genetic alterations that have been
effected in the production of genetically modified crops
would have been produced in any other way. Perhaps
this premise should be somewhat qualified, but it
contains a kernel of truth.

Step One: Are the premises true?

Premise

2: Changes in food crops due to gene

splicing threaten everyones health.

Evaluation:

This claim requires additional

support and evidence. Many people are
concerned about the health effects of genetically
modified food crops, but no one has shown that
these crops are dangerous. The author of the
paragraph provides no evidence that genetically
modified crops are dangerous.

Step One: Are the premises true?

Premise

3: Changes in food crops pose a threat

of massive environmental damage.

Evaluation:

Once again, this claim requires

support. There may indeed be reasons for
concern about the environmental effects of
genetically modified crops, but the author has not
given us any evidence. Without more evidence,
we may not be in a position to evaluate this
premise.

Step One: Are the premises true?

Premise

4: Genetic modification of crops is

unnatural.

Evaluation:

The term natural can be slippery,

and we may need to know more about what the
author has in mind. In context, it seems that the
author regards things that are unnatural as bad.
But in an important sense, bridges, computers,
vaccines and artworks are unnatural.

Step One: Are the premises true?

Premise

5: Genetic modification of crops is

dangerous.

Evaluation:

Once again we need evidence for

such a claim before we can place our trust in it.
In what sense is genetic modification dangerous,
and what are the specific dangers the author has
in mind? Without more evidence, we may simply
find that we are not yet in a position to evaluate
the argument.