This Just In: Nuclear Power is Dangerous
Disclaimer: Whenever i put gifs in here it f's up the whole layout so ima figure that later but until then you can enjoy a collection of images by searching up "nuclear power" on google images.
Upon reading through the selection a few times, certain points make themselves clear. To begin with, the speaker is Anne Applebaum, a concerned author for the Washington Post who thinks people care about her opinion. Obviously, the job of a persuasive writer is to convince their reader of a specific side, but Applebaum should be aware that it’s a vicious world out there, and readers will label her as a misguided activist if her article doesn’t use the perfect amount of logos, ethos, and pathos. The occasion is in the wake of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear event, in which the Fukushima nuclear reactor structures had to be filled with seawater in order to prevent an explosion or leak of radiation. This brings me to kairos, which is very convenient at the time of this passage being written because its just hours after the Fukushima event. If this article were to be written before the event, people would view it as unnecessary or irrelevant, but if it were written too long after, it would be too late.
When I say people, I have to bring up audience, which in this passage is those deemed uneducated on the topic of nuclear power and its dangers. Applebaum, in writing this, wants people to know her truth about nuclear energy. This is her purpose: to educate those mentioned previously. The subject she speaks about here is the supposedly warranted danger of nuclear power.
When it comes to pathos, it could arguably be better, because I don’t actually feel concerned about the whole situation. The author seems to use too much alarmist language which has a reverse effect on the reader. Her references to 9/11 and WWII make Applebaum sound more alarmist than justified because they are uncalled for and irrelevant. She likely believes that fearmongering as a result of exaggerating the evidence will cause readers to be more likely to take action when it truly has the reverse effect on any reader who can interpret the data the correct way.
The ethos in this passage is weak because there’s nothing giving her any authority or credibility on the topic. Actually, the fact that she’s a newspaper author that profits off of writing a publicized article makes her even less credible, as she might use hyperbole to stretch some facts and get attention.
The logos in this passage is good; it’s where the article shines. Applebaum gives multiple sources of credible evidence, which supports her argument that nuclear power plants should be discontinued.
When I say people, I have to bring up audience, which in this passage is those deemed uneducated on the topic of nuclear power and its dangers. Applebaum, in writing this, wants people to know her truth about nuclear energy. This is her purpose: to educate those mentioned previously. The subject she speaks about here is the supposedly warranted danger of nuclear power.
When it comes to pathos, it could arguably be better, because I don’t actually feel concerned about the whole situation. The author seems to use too much alarmist language which has a reverse effect on the reader. Her references to 9/11 and WWII make Applebaum sound more alarmist than justified because they are uncalled for and irrelevant. She likely believes that fearmongering as a result of exaggerating the evidence will cause readers to be more likely to take action when it truly has the reverse effect on any reader who can interpret the data the correct way.
The ethos in this passage is weak because there’s nothing giving her any authority or credibility on the topic. Actually, the fact that she’s a newspaper author that profits off of writing a publicized article makes her even less credible, as she might use hyperbole to stretch some facts and get attention.
The logos in this passage is good; it’s where the article shines. Applebaum gives multiple sources of credible evidence, which supports her argument that nuclear power plants should be discontinued.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJulian,
ReplyDeleteYour blog was too short to have given a good rhetorical analysis. You lack in giving evidence from the text to support your reasoning. You talk about logos, ethos, pathos and kiaros but you don't explain why their wasn't enough or wasn't any of them at all. You don't say anything about Applebaum's tone in her article at all which is part of language and style. I do however like that you go off on Applebaum in your beginning paragraph. Also, instead of saying "reader" in the third sentence of your beginning paragraph you should say audience. Overall, you need to explain more and give evidence to support your reasoning behind why Applebaum is a "misguided activist." And why her article is not effective. This is why I am giving you a high band 1.
Julian,
ReplyDeleteFirst off, I think you could have focused more on tone and diction. This would not only help you build your argument for the pathos of the article but it would have also gave you more points for talking about the language. Next, you need much more evidence to back up your points. Using quotes from the text would help improve your blog. For example, for logos, you said that is was quintessential to the article. If it was so important, you should have included more evidence to back it up and provided quotes. In your first paragraph, you did an adequate job explaining the speaker, occasion, and audience however, I wish you took more time to explain and make it clear what Applebaum's main argument was/ what the topic of the article was. The use of transition sentences would be beneficial to your blog and would make everything flow better.
I would grade your blog a band 5 since you did an adequate job explaining the occasion, audience, and speaker. However, your points seemed very disconnected from one another and you did not use any evidence from the text to back up your points.
Okay before I even go to grading what band it is, at the end, you simply say "The logos in this passage is good", and you don't even elaborate. That elaborating might help your word count.
ReplyDeleteCarrying on from that, I would grade this at a Band 5. There is not any structure in this whole paper, and it is because there isn't really evidence or elaboration on anything. Now you do somewhat understand this paper, but as it says for the description of Band 5, there is failure with key features and misunderstandings.
Julian,
ReplyDeleteI thought you had good information, but overall I thought your blog was too short. I thought you needed to explain off your reasoning more. A way off making your blog seem longer would be to add quotes from the text which would of have made your blog seem stronger. You need to add evidence on why the article is not effective. Also, one of the main points of writing this was style and language and another big part of it was tone. However, I feel you didn't even really mention the tone at all or if you did it wasn't really clear. Next time when you are done with a paragraph and going into a next one, I would add a sentence that wraps it up and say something about what the next paragraph is going to be about, (transition sentence). Also in your introduction you are supposed to give a little background information to show the audience what you are going to be talking about which I feel you could of have done better. Although I thought you explained the occasion well as you brought kairos into it and mentioned the Fukushima nuclear reactor.
Overall I would grade this a Band 5. It thought you needed to elaborate a lot more and use evidence from the text. I believe that would have made your blog stronger and longer. This would have added evidence and would have backed up your reasoning and what you were saying.
Julian,
ReplyDeleteHonestly i did not really like this blog. It was way to short to be going into a rhetorical analysis that would get you a substantial amount of points on the test. Considering you need 600-900 words on the test, I you need to have at least 120 words to reach the bare minimum. I also think that if you focus more on the tone and diction which would increase the strength of your analysis. Also, it will help you develop your arguments for ethos logos and pathos. You also need to take quotes from the text to back up your idea. I think you were okay at explaining SOAPS to some extent but it was very disorganized and way too short. I think I would grade you at a band 5.
Overall your blog was decent. To begin, I did enjoy the paragraph, though short, about kairos. It was something I haven't seen yet in any other blog, so it was a good change of reading for the audience. Also, you brought up many good points. On the other hand, you need to focus on tone, as well as adding evidence and increasing details. Throughout the whole paper, you had absolutely no evidence to back up your claims, therefore, lacking in the credibility department. After every point, you would only write about one-two sentences as an attempt to explain your thoughts. Since you legit barely wrote anything, there was almost no detail at all. You also did not transition your paragraphs at all. The part about "The logos in this passage is good;" is completely wrong to put in any rhetorical analysis, and should be deleted. With this being said, this blog deserves a Band 5.
ReplyDeleteKingamous Blingamous,
ReplyDeleteto start I think your article is around 400 words, maybe 420. That's way too short for paper 1, so this would automatically be a band 6. For the sake of grading though, I'll ignore the word count. I think that for the actual analysis, you could have elaborated more and split some ideas into separate paragraphs. This would not only help with the development of your analysis, but also help get the word count up. Don't list out the specific SOAPS acronym, but it was good that you talked about it because a lot of people have not. It feels like you were rushed at the end, and just included a lot of information in the end. Your word count and syntax would improve if you talked about all of those separately. That being said, your development overall was good. It was easy to follow, and you had some great content with minimal grammar mistakes. Not including the word count, I would place this at a high band 4, you just need some more elaboration.
Hey Julian, as all the other people said this, but I just to remind you that this is too short to even get to grading it needs to be 600-900 words you didn't get there and need to when the test actually comes around. I think you focus too much on the actual author and not enough on her article and if it was effective or not. You need to step away from just listing the soaps and ethos, logos, and pathos and elaborate more on them. Overall, I would give a band 5 there's much to work on, but you will eventually get higher.
ReplyDeleteKey Bling King. First off, I have to say that you got great style. It really kept me interested throughout the blog. But I do have a problem with a few things throughout.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, evidence is a big think and I find your lack of it somewhat worrying. Like: you say that the audience of the article is meant to be those uneducated about nuclear power and its effects, but you show no evidence that this is the case. Perhaps quoting some lines from the article and then explaining your point would remedy this issue. Also, your paragraphs on kairos and audience feel a little short when compared to your next few paragraphs. I believe you should extend these paragraphs to not only elaborate on your arguments but make the whole analysis feel more satisfying to read as a whole.
A nice attempt with a lot of potential, though it does feel lacking: I’d say this is a high band 5 to low band 4.
Julian,
ReplyDeleteTo start the first step of writing any blog is see what the requirements are and make sure to meet them, but you fell precisely 181 words short the BARE minimum. I can understand writing 600 words and stopping but you have "one job, one job and you failed" @Spencer. So for that fact I can not even give you a band to rank in because by the rubric you have already gotten a 0. But next is the information that is actually in the blog to start you did not include a single piece of evidence to back up your points, you do make a reference to the author talking about 911 but there was no evidence included. You also did a really weak job on elaborating on logos, ethos, and pathos. Overall I feel that you understood what you wanted to say but you did not do a good job executing that because your blog lacked in analysis. But I did like your disclaimer.
My sire. To start off I must repeat what has been stated many times already. It is short bruv and it is evident that it is not because you ran out of things to write. There are many aspects that could be expanded upon. With references and further evidence or even just a simple explanation on the things you mention, you would be looking at another hundred words and made it the bare minimum. From what I can see, it appears that you do know what you are talking about, so I know you are capable of doing much more with this. Your ideas have a place to form an entire paragraph, but they just hop to the next idea, making it very disorganized to read. I hate to do this but at this point in time, I believe that Cambridge would give you a six.
ReplyDeleteHey dude who triggers my nerd alert, you start your analysis with saying “Anne Applebaum… who thinks people care about her opinion”. Your analysis, similar to Applebaum’s article, should avoid this negative appeal to pathos as it makes you seem less mature and therefore less credible. You provided no quotes to support your claims. For more ethos you should’ve at least provided some text so the readers could have proof. It was very clear to see what topic (like logos, ethos, etc.) you were talking about because you stated it, but there were no transitions between these topics. Transitions could be an easier way to combine the ideas discussed to add more to your perspective.
ReplyDeleteBand 5, 3 Marks: No transition and quotes really brought this down
(I write my comments in google docs and transfer them when i'm done, I would not have written this now seeing how many comments you have because I think you get the point after reading 12)