Courtney Vita

   This is a reasonably good start on the first writing 
   assignment.  You have done a good job, for the most part, 
   on the "they say" part.  But I think you should try
   to get more of the details of the arguments from the
   two articles into your summaries and not settle for
   merely relating the overall points of view.  Doing
   that would be a way to show that you have truly understood
   the points of view expressed in both.  

   I have made a number of suggestions for rewording
   or rewriting things directly on a printout of the 
   paper.  Ask me what I meant if the markings are not
   clear.  Most of the changes I'm suggesting are 
   aimed at getting your sentences to flow a bit better.
   Especially at the start of the opening paragraph,
   you're stuck in a sequence of short, choppy, 
   and repetitive sentences.  A lot of the words aren't
   necessary, and the sentences can be folded together
   into less choppy sentences, as I have tried to indicate 
   with the markings.  

   Comments

   1)  You're right to say that Greenbaum and Gerstein
   are saying that the process of genetic modification
   should not be a stumbling block for people.  They
   suggest that the final products of that process should
   count more.  But what are the final products and why
   have people used GM techniques on food crops?  What
   benefits are claimed for them?  It is important to 
   mention this, especially since the Laskawy article
   is going to claim that the supposed benefits of GMO
   crops have not actually materialized.

   2) I don't think that Laskawy is really claiming
   that people have made the end product more important
   than the process.  Isn't his main point really that
   the claimed benefits of using GMO crops have not 
   been realized?  Moreover, instead of better and 
   more reliable food production systems, the big
   agribusiness companies have really only reaped 
   huge profits while promoting unsustainable and 
   inefficient was of producing food.  

   3) You're right that Laskawy's argument is based on
   actual data much more so than is true for the argument
   in the other paper.  You could say more about what 
   Laskawy claims the data show, though.  For instance, did 
   the introduction of GMO corn varieties drastically
   increase the corn harvests?  He says "no" and he
   claims you can tell from one of the graphs.  Which
   graph is it and why is he making that claim?

   PS:  One of the main points of the Laskawy article
   is that increased resistance to pesticides and herbicides 
   is negating the benefits of GMO crops.  The interesting
   point here is that that resistance develops naturally 
   through evolution.  In effect, the genomes of the
   pests and the weeds are changing in response to 
   our genetic modification of the crops.  Some people
   compare the situation to an arms race where neither
   side can ever gain a decisive advantage.