RE V ISE
nO a I
Surname 3
Name
Professor Name
Course Name
Date
Reflecting on Rhetoric in My Essay on GMOs
The process of preparing my essay, “The Benefits of Genetically Modified Plants (GMOs) in Agriculture,” made it clear that rhetoric has been very important and planned. I began by using language techniques to interest my readers and show why the subject is significant. Focusing the discussion on how genetically modified plants play a global role in productive farming, food supplies, environment care, and technological improvements showed why the subject deserves attention. This was intended to show readers the major implications of GMOs and encourage them to look at the subject from both scientific and humanitarian standpoints.
I drew my thesis and my essay structure using the rhetorical appeals of ethos, logos, and pathos from Aristotle. Reliable academic findings, recent journal articles, and commentary from experts help establish the ethos of a text (Gubala, Larson and Melonçon). It gains the audience’s trust by making it clear that my argument comes from valid sources. The logic behind my content is one example of my Logos. It begins with what GMOs are, then moves on to their benefits, and closes with an assessment of how they positively or negatively impact people, society, and the economy. I tried to make the structure clear by explaining how GMOs are adopted and result in better yields and less need for pesticides. Finally, though pathos is not a major theme, I included descriptions intended to touch my audience’s feelings about how desperate the world’s hunger can be, how hard it is for small-scale farmers, and how necessary it is to act ethically using technology.
That being said, I believe that my work can be improved in two significant locations. My goal is to develop and enhance my use of various kinds of information. Sometimes, despite collecting a great deal of information, I have trouble smoothly connecting it to what I say. I will focus on using the correct ways to reference others (APA) and using signal phrases at the right times, so my paraphrasing or direct quoting doesn’t change the style of my essay. I am also worried that I missed giving credit for some common ideas or results and I hope to confirm that all claims lead back to trustworthy sources. I get that adding well-integrated sources to my paper boosts its credibility and I wish to ensure my paper is not dominated by outside sources but has my analysis too.
I also find it hard to explain how GMOs impact the economy and ethics. This field is involved and needs to be explained well and discussed with care (Anyshchenko). I am searching for ways to define “economic sustainability” and “bioethics” so that readers from diverse backgrounds can relate to them without being too basic. I also think that discussing GMOs abstractly can be clearer when illustrated with real-world case studies which is why I am introducing the success stories of Bt cotton in India and Golden Rice in Southeast Asia as case studies. Still, I am making sure that my presentation of ethics is fair and respectful, while also addressing reasons to disagree with my main point.
My overall goal is to make a reasonable argument, rhetorically sound which not only informs but persuades my readers about the significance and value of genetically modified plants in modern agriculture. I welcome suggestions from peers as to how to further improve the clarity of my economic and moral arguments and how to incorporate and source the sources used in this essay more cleanly. Also, suggestions on how to improve my transitions between paragraphs and ways to strengthen my conclusion would be appreciated. Refining these elements, I think, will help me make my work more persuasive and professional in general.
Works Cited
Anyshchenko, A. ” The precautionary principle in EU regulation of GMOs: socio-economic considerations and ethical implications of biotechnology.” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 32(5) (2019): 855-872.
Gubala, C, K Larson and L Melonçon. “Do writing errors bother professionals? An analysis of the most bothersome errors and how the writer’s ethos is affected.” Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 34(3) (2020): 250-286.
