Argument Genre Comparison

The cartoon on page 1 and the ad on page 24 depict two very different points of view. Both are effective, but how effective they are depends on the audience.

The cartoon shows a fat man telling a starving man not to consume the genetically modified food. To a glancing reader, this would probably have more impact than the advertisement. It makes the point in a very concise manner, and it is designed to pull on the heartstrings of the sympathetic. Regardless of my own opinions of genetically modified food, this certainly caught my attention. In trying to pusuade an audience, the chosen genre is excellent if targeting the fast-paced American. However, the argument is also hurt by the genre. It fails to acknowledge the gray area in the argument, using exclusively pursuasive arguments, rather than truth seeking. When faced with a situation of giving a man genetically altered food or letting him starve, no one would even stop to think about it. It's not a practical way to end world hunger, but that's an entirely new argument. A person who would pause to think about the cartoon would realize this, and it would suddenly lose much of its meaning.

The ad also suffers from the problem the cartoon has; its content is rooted exclusively in a sinle opinion. However, it does give more evidence to its cause than the cartoon does. The photo draws attention from passer-bys, and the brief article beneath it succinctly summarizes the agenda of whoever posted the ad.

Although both genres are primarily pursuasive arguments, the ad is more pursuasive because it presents the information in a way that makes it appear as though it has more truthful evidence. Whether it is more truthful is debatable, but it is more likely to alter peoples' opinions because of how the information is presented.