Rhetorical Analysis Of The Case Of Engineering Food

Rhetorical Analysis of “The Case of Engineering Food”
Plant geneticist Pamela Ronald in her TED talk, “The Case of Engineering Food” argues that she acknowledges a food system that admits both organic and genetically engineered food. In order to compel viewers, she describes examples with images of organic plants and vegetables in her TED talk presentation. Her intended audience is the public and she claims to provide examples of plant genetic applications that are in the public domain and not controlled by large seed companies. She uses rhetorical analysis and evaluation of an argument throughout her talk for the purpose of persuading listeners about the genetic methods used in food that are safe for humans and the environment. For example, her talk is very convincing, argumentative,

In order to compel listeners she mentions who she is at the beginning of her talk and she says, “I am a plant geneticist” and “My laboratory published our discovery on the rice immunity gene” she leads the audiences to trust in her work because her discovery on rice is been publically published and anybody interested in her work can read about it as in websites like TED talk. Right after her discovery about rice immunity gene her friend and colleague Dave Mackill tells the story about seventeen millions of farmers facing trouble growing rice. By sharing this story with the audience and her feelings toward the farmers, and by mentioning that they are going through hard times makes her appear more knowledgeable about the difficulties farmers are facing around the world, enables her to be more trustworthy, and willing to help. She is making an ethical conclusion when she reaches to help struggling farmers with plant genetic modification trough the help of great and powerful organizations like Bill and Melinda Gates