Anne Applebaum in The Washington Post attempts to prove the danger of nuclear power to society. She does provide some facts, but it’s not organized and she doesn’t refute any of her counterarguments. It was her disorganization that made her argument sub-par.
Applebaum provides evidence and arguments to back up her claims in her article, but it is the reader’s job to connect the dots so that they can fully appreciate the depth of the writing. She gives us information about the Fukushima reactor meltdown. The potential damage of a meltdown is not explained until the sixth paragraph. She states that “damage may include, for example, the destruction or poisoning of a nation”. This sentence doesn’t even mention Fukushima directly, but instead generalizes any damage that could be caused by a nuclear meltdown. In paragraph 3, she poses the question, “If the technically brilliant and competent Japanese can’t construct a safe reactor, who else can?” The next paragraph contains the author’s counterargument. This appears to be a question that remains unanswered. After about half of the paragraph, she decides to answer her own question. She talks about a Franco German company that is trying to build a “super safe, ‘next-generation’ nuclear reactor”. These failures in organization make the column hard to read and cause the reader to jump from one subject to another.
Applebaum’s article contains the exact facts that she requires to create a compelling argument. These facts are supported by several credible sources. Due to their disorganization, Applebaum’s point cannot be proven. Applebaum uses some facts that are almost irrelevant. It’s as if she only wants to convey a certain ethos. For example, “a city of 25,000 was wiped out by the massive tsunami which followed the Friday earthquake”. This statement has a slight relevance to Fukushima. However, it has no relation to safe nuclear reactors. Applebaum does not provide the facts she needs, for example in her refutation to her counter-argument.
Her counter-argument is “It’s possible – and it will be argued – that the Japanese situation has been extraordinary”. Japan is one of the most vulnerable countries to natural disasters, and this earthquake’s scale was unprecedented. The reader’s only option for a clear refutation is to say “But other types of extraordinary situations and unforeseeable circumstances exist”. Although the counter-argument was well presented, it wasn’t refuted very well. Applebaum might have made her case if they had provided specific examples. The reader will have to decide whether her statement is true. This questioning is a precursor to a jello-like argument. The message is not spread out, but the mess is hard to swallow at once.
Applebaum’s disorganization as well as her inability to refute her counter-argument led to a piece that is not only believable, it’s also unclear. Her target audience will struggle to understand all the information that she provides, even if they are well-educated. Applebaum is adamant in her efforts, but it appears that putting together a well-organized, complete column has been proving difficult. She is confusing her readers and does not provide much support for the opinions she expresses. Applebaum’s intention is clear, but not proved.
