Applebaum’s Column
In Anne Applebaum’s column titled “If the Japanese can’t build a safe reactor, who can?” on The Washington Post, she attempts to prove that nuclear power plants are a danger to our society. Although her column contains many facts from various resources, it is rather disorganized, and she does not provide solid refutes to her counterarguments. Her organization is the main mistake she made, causing her argument to be sub-par at best.
Applebaum’s arguments, and evidence to support them are all within her column, but the reader must play a game of connect the dots to fully understand the depth of her writing. In the second paragraph she provides us with information on the reactor meltdown in Fukushima. However, she does not explain the potential effects of a meltdown until you reach paragraph six, in which she states “the damage could include, say, the destruction of a city or the poisoning of a country”. This sentence is not even directly addressing the effects of Fukushima, but generalizing the damage of any nuclear meltdown.
In paragraph three, she prompts the question “If the competent and technologically brilliant Japanese can’t build a completely safe reactor, who can?”. This question appears to remain unanswered because the next paragraph contains her counterargument. It is not until halfway through this paragraph that she finally decides to address her question. She discusses a Franco-German company attempting to construct a “super-safe, ‘next generation’ nuclear reactor”. These organizational failures create a column that is hard to follow and leave the reader jumping from one thing to the next, and back again.
The facts in Applebaum’s column are exactly what she needs to craft a good argument and, they are backed up by a few credible sources. However, due to the disorganization of these facts, her point remains unproven. Some of the facts are almost irrelevant, as if they are only there to give Applebaum a sense of ethos, such as “a town of 25,000, annihilated by the tsunami that followed Friday’s massive earthquake”. This statement, although slightly relevant to Fukushima, has nothing to do with safe nuclear reactors. Applebaum also fails to place facts where they are needed, such as her refute to her counter argument.
Her counter argument states “It can – and will – be argued that the Japanese situation is extraordinary. Few countries are as vulnerable to natural catastrophe as Japan, and the scale of this earthquake is unprecedented”. The only clear refute the reader is left with is “But there are other kinds of extraordinary situations and unprecedented circumstances” . Although the counter argument was presented well, it was not refuted well at all. If Applebaum had provided examples of circumstances which would cause such a catastrophe, then her point may have been proven. However, she did not, leaving the reader to question the validity of her statement. This slight questioning leads to an argument that’s about as solid as jello. It does not spill everywhere, because the message she is trying to get through is all there, but it is a little messy and hard to swallow all at once.
127 our experts are availableright now
Applebaum’s disorganization and poor refute to her counter argument led to a column that is believable, but not clear. Even if her target audience is well-educated, they will have to struggle to comprehend all of the information she lays down. Applebaum’s attempts are strong willed, but crafting a full, well organized column appears to be an issue. She sends readers in circles, providing little back up on her opinions. Applebaum’s purpose is there, but it is not proven.
