Question

reread paragraph 8 from \why people oppose gmos even though science says they are safe\
which option most accurately evaluates the evidence provided to support the idea that \the current (gm) applications have been proven to be safe\?
why people oppose gmos

since the author does not describe current gm applications or their effects, there is no evidence to support this idea.

the evidence is sufficient because the author proves that resistance to gm applications is based on emotion, not fact.

since the author describes current gm applications and their benefits, there is ample evidence to support this idea.

the evidence is insufficient because the author admits gm applications, in some cases, have negative outcomes.

Explanation:

To evaluate the evidence for "current GM applications proven safe", we analyze each option:

• First option: If the author doesn't describe GM apps or their effects, there's no evidence for safety. This is logical as evidence for safety would require info on apps/their effects.
• Second option: Proving resistance is emotional doesn't prove GM apps are safe (irrelevant to safety evidence).
• Third option: Describing benefits isn't the same as proving safety (benefits ≠ safety evidence).
• Fourth option: The question is about evidence for safety, not negative outcomes (irrelevant to the claim's evidence).

So the first option correctly states there's no evidence if the author doesn't describe apps/effects.

Answer:

Since the author does not describe current GM applications or their effects, there is no evidence to support this idea.