The two articles communicate two issues of concern. The article by Allan Greenblatt reports about the pros and cons of using genetically modified mosquitoes to fight disease while the one written by Jill Adams examine whether or not the federal government is doing enough to keep the drinking water in America safe for their consumption. On that note, this paper is for the stance that using genetically engineered mosquitoes to fight the Zika virus is inefficient and expensive. The article also takes the position that the government is doing what is required to keep American water safe for drinking.
Allan Greenblatt states that using genetically engineered mosquitoes to fight diseases caused by the Zika virus is expensive. The writer says that the companies involved in developing the mosquitoes use a lot of money and take time before they release the mosquitoes to be utilized in the targeted areas. Similarly, the author states that researchers have not done enough studies to examine the advantages, disadvantages as well as benefits of using genetically engineered mosquitoes to fight diseases (Greenbaltt, 2016) . On the same note, the author supports his argument that using these types of mosquitoes is inefficient by citing the fact that the act leads to the eradication of the already endangered species of amphibians, birds, and bats. This is because; these animals rely on mosquitoes as a source of their food. Therefore, killing mosquitoes is detrimental to the lives of these species that depends on them as a source of livelihood. On the other hand, the author states that it is inefficient to use one type of mosquitoes to eradicate the other by creating new species because the new species might carry unknown diseases that are equally harmful not only to man but also to animals (Greenbaltt, 2016) . On the same note, the writer states that the mosquitoes and the diseases are found in poor regions that also require enough funds to be protected from such occurrences. In his opinion, the author states that instead of using a lot of money to be rooted out of poverty. Therefore, instead of using too much fund to oversee such operations, the people should convert the money to improving the living conditions of the poor. The author also believes that, less expensive methods can be used to deal with the issues of mosquitoes causing diseases in the named regions (Greenbaltt, 2016) . The article about safe water takes the opinion that the government has done enough to ensure that Americans have safe water by deploying sufficient funds for the sustenance of the water plants in the nation. Similarly, the author is of the opinion that each state should be responsible for keeping and maintaining their water plants to ensure that the locals have access to safe water for their consumption (Jill, 2016) . Indeed, availability of clean water should be the duty of the local leaders working together with government appointed bodies but not left entirely to the federal government
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The evidence provides by Jill Adams avail enough evidence that supports the fact that the government has done enough to support the need to make safe water available to the citizens. Adams state that the government has kept funds for this drive. Similarly, the government has given such jobs to the people in the Senate and other local leaders to ensure that their regions have the finances they need to provide safe water for their local populations. Therefore, the federal government expects the local leaders to work together with their people to ensure that they utilize the money accordingly. Similarly, Greenblatt has also given enough evidence to support the fact that using genetically engineered mosquitoes to fight disease is expensive and less beneficial not only to humans but to animals. For example, he has stated the amount involved in conducting such research. He has also mentioned the fact that using such mosquitoes to eradicate mosquito-carrying diseases by creating a new species of the insect is inefficient because researchers do not know the type of illness that the new species of mosquitoes will cause to the people. He has also stated the fact that killing mosquitoes is detrimental to already endangered species of birds, bats, and amphibians. All these factors are vital and should be considered before the researchers proceed with such an exercise.
Additional evidence to refute the fact that the government has done enough to ensure safe water for their citizens relies on the existing untreated bodies of water lying in most neighborhoods. Some people would also want to see active involvement of government leaders taking part in cleaning and treating water plants, a factor that has not occurred. On the other hand, other people would want to see more news coverage detailing the extent to which the federal government has been committed to ensuring availability of safe water in the nation. On the same note, people can use evidence such are reduced number of mosquitoes in different regions by using biotechnological methods to fight diseases causing organisms. They can also rely on the use of other methods that do not require scientific methods to help eradicate a particular illness. Similarly, they can argue that the endangered species can rely on the new species of mosquitoes as their food.
The kind of evidence that can support the claims by Greenblatt on the need to use another method to eradicate the disease using other ways is found in the methods that have been used by people in third world countries that rely on other cheap methods to deal with the presence of mosquitoes. For example, most people in developing nations have drained stagnant water to eradicate mosquitoes and direct them in another regions that have less or not human pipulations. Similarly, one can use the evidence of large bodies of treated water and the high number of people using clean water to support the fact that the government had done enough to support the availability of safe water to support the claim that the federal government has taken the right steps in increasing the availability of safe water.
The strength of the argument given by Greenblatt is based on the fact that it is indeed possible for people to use different cheaper methods to fight the existence of disease-causing mosquitoes in developing and developed countries. Similarly, it is true that bats, amphibians, and birds rely on mosquitoes as their source of food, therefore interfering with their food sources is detrimental to them. Finally, the large sums of money for creating genetically engineered mosquitoes can be used to improve the living standards of the poor. On the other hand, leaders at the local levels in all the states have worked with other authorities to ensure availability of clean water. On the same note, the government has disbursed enough funds to be utilized by local leaders to improve the safety f water for their populations.
The major weakness of Adams is that her pros and cons for dealing with the issue of clean water seem to overlap. Therefore, it becomes hard for the reader to come up with distinct differences based on her arguments. She does not use evidence or concrete examples to substantiate her claims. On the other hand, Greenblatt does not use statistics to provide evidence of the argument in his articles. Similarly,he does not give examples of the nations that have used cheaper methods to eradicate mosquito causing diseases.
- References
Greenbaltt, A. (2016). Should genetically modified mosquitoes be used to fight disease? CQ Researcher.
Jill, A. (2016). Is the federal government doing enough to keep America's drinking water safe? CQ Researcher.
