Text 1: Biologist Park argues that GMO crops have substantially benefited agriculture. Insect-resistant Bt cotton has reduced pesticide use; herbicide-tolerant soybeans have simplified weed control; vitamin-enriched golden rice has the potential to address childhood blindness in poor regions.
Text 2: Biologist Singh accepts that some GMO crops have produced benefits but argues for context-sensitive evaluation. Bt cotton, she notes, has lost effectiveness as pests evolved resistance; herbicide tolerance has driven heavier herbicide use; golden rice's nutritional benefits, while real, depend on distribution networks that have proven difficult to build. Each case must be evaluated on its own terms.
Both authors would most likely agree that
- A
GMO technology should be banned outright.
- B
all GMO crops are uniformly successful.
- Ccheck_circle
specific GMO crops have produced measurable benefits in at least some cases.
- D
no GMO crop has produced any benefit at all.
Explanation
Both accept that some GMO crops have produced benefits; they differ on how to evaluate the technology overall. A is shared. B, C, and D contradict at least one author.