Question

passage: a youtube video argues that genetically modified organisms (gmos) are dangerous based on historical mistrust of corporations. it offers no speculative hypotheticals. the speaker presents themselves as an expert but cites no credentials. question: which choice best evaluates the speakers argument? the speakers lack of authoritative sourcing and dependence on conjecture seriously compromise the arguments credibility. the speakers conviction substitutes adequately for academic rigor. public apprehension validates the argument despite a lack of scholarly references. emotional resonance justifies the dismissal of empirical scrutiny.

Explanation:

The speaker in the video has no authoritative sourcing as they cite no credentials and rely on historical mistrust rather than solid evidence. Academic - rigor requires proper sourcing and not just conjecture. Conviction, public apprehension, or emotional resonance are not substitutes for scholarly references and empirical scrutiny.

Answer:

The speaker's lack of authoritative sourcing and dependence on conjecture seriously compromise the argument's credibility.