Short Answer 
The evidence for genetically modified organisms (GMOs) differs between two claims: Claim 1 relies on anecdotal evidence and personal experiences, while Claim 2 is supported by over 2,000 scientific studies highlighting the safety and benefits of GMOs. This distinction indicates that Claim 2 offers a more credible and robust argument compared to the subjective nature of Claim 1.
Step 1: Understand the Evidence Types
Claims about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) differ primarily in the type of evidence they use. Claim 1 leans on anecdotal evidence, relying on personal experiences and historical context, while Claim 2 utilizes extensive scientific studies. This distinction is crucial, as it reflects how each claim is constructed and supported.
Step 2: Analyze Claim 1
Claim 1 posits that genetic engineering has long been a part of agricultural practices, which suggests a positive view of GMOs. This claim emphasizes the historical consumption of genetically engineered foods based on experiential knowledge. However, it lacks the backing of scientific research, making it less formal and more subjective.
Step 3: Examine Claim 2
In contrast, Claim 2 asserts that over 2,000 scientific studies support the safety of GMOs and highlight their potential benefits. This claim stresses the role of GMOs in addressing global challenges like food insecurity and enhancing nutrition. By relying on empirical evidence, Claim 2 presents a more robust and credible argument compared to Claim 1.