Reply #66: Just one problem.

[Igel]

And it's systemic in the article: The argument isn't made, it's assumed, and presented in such a way that the reader also assumes it. Then the proof, not being needed, isn't missed.

There's a change in topic--Monsanto, GM seeds, etc., etc.

Then, "in return for allowing western companies access", the IMF provided loans. Were GMO-pushers among the companies? Were they *required* to be among the "western companies"? Was India required to push the western companies' wares, or just "provide access".

Now, that India agreed to let them sell the seed is beyond dispute: Even if India rejected the idea of banning the seeds, that's still permission of a kind. However, is that the same as "vested interest"? The writer simply does not make explicit the crucial link in the argument. That happens when the writer cannot make it, is so into the topic that s/he thinks that it's unnecessary to make it (that's what editors are for), or has manipulated the reader (also a justification for the editor's pay); or when the reader is already informed about the link and doesn't need it to be made. So either I'm not part of the target audience--something silly for a mass publication--or the editor botched it after either the writer botched it or tried to manipulate the reader.

The same kind of begging the question occurs so often as to make shredding this article a worthy topic for a frosh comp course; of course, this doesn't say that the claim is false, just that this writer didn't, couldn't, or wouldn't make it. 18 suicides in one village are connected to farmers' use of GMOs ... out of how many suicides? GM seeds are grown ... but that's what the villager says; meanwhile, the writer alludes to the possibility of fake GM seeds being on the market, so are the instances where GMOs are used actually instances where GMOs are used? Did the writer check out this possibility, and isn't a good investigative reporter after truth and facts, not just advocacy against or for a position? This specific GM crop needs twice the water, so that's the problem ... but there's a drought, which, while making things more difficult, may make the distinction between needing X and 2X water moot--did traditional cotton varieties go to market successfully, not an unimportant point to make the writer's claim trustworthy. Etc., etc.