At the time he wrote the article Why You Should Fear Your Toaster More Than Nuclear Power, Taylor Pearson was a sophomore student at the University of Texas, Austin. He prepared this article as a public argument for an academic assignment, developing an informal argument on nuclear power, as he indicates on his LinkedIn profile (Taylor Pearson). Although the writing is an informal argument, the author of this text is nevertheless credible and trustworthy due to his academic record, to his interest for world affair or political issues and his transparent, clear and accurate writing style. In the analyzed article, Pearson claims that people should not fear the nuclear power because it is less harming than other energy sources, even more harmful than a toaster, and in exchange it produces tremendous benefits for a better living. As the writer states, “in comparison to the other major means of energy production in the United States, nuclear power is remarkably safe” (Pearson 175). The claim is stated on a relaxed, yet accurate tone, as the author makes use of relevant data for defending and confirming the benefits of nuclear power for “saving human lives” (Pearson 175) introduced in the text in a humorous manner. In fact the entire essay mingles precise information with personal interpretation, concise data with customized jocularity and at times wit irony. The tone of the essay affects the way that I read the article, as it influences me to approach the discussion about nuclear energy in a loose manner. In the same time, the tone of the article also makes me see a new perspective regarding the nuclear energy, perceiving it more like a friend than a threat.
While developing his argument in favor of nuclear energy, Pearson incorporates in his argumentation the elements of Toulmin model, linking his claim with the grounds (sustaining evidence) through warrants, adding backing, using rebuttal and qualifying the claim. The author develops a thorough reasoning for sustaining his claim that nuclear power is not dangerous, arguing that other energy sources such as coal or oil and even a home appliance (the toaster) are far more dangerous to humans’ lives than the nuclear energy. While developing his chain reasoning to support his claim, Pearson uses warrants throughout the text. Nevertheless, Pearson provides conditions of rebuttal by voicing the nuclear energy’s specificities that generated negative associations with the nuclear bombs, World War II, the Cold War, radiations or wastes produced from the nuclear power plants. Pearson takes into consideration the “against”, counterarguments or objections that one audience might rise regarding his claim, analyzes them and makes strategic concession for the waste counterargument, while demonstrating the irrelevance of the negative associations (“The Toulmin Model of Argumentation”). Pearson agrees that the waste produced by nuclear power plant conditions his argument, indicating the limits to his claim: “While the nuclear waste problem isn’t something to be too worried about, it would be still better if we could satisfy our demand for energy without producing waste” (Pearson 178). By comparing the impact of coal and oil on humans’ lives, on the quality of life o on the global warming with the one of nuclear energy, the writer provides informed evidence to sustain his claim. Moreover, by dismantling the myth that nuclear plants generate radiations and by demonstrating that the waste produced by nuclear plants is minimal comparative to alternative energy sources, Pearson produces sufficient evidence to sustain his claim.
Firstly I would consider Pearson’s argument informative, as he presents relevant facts citing reputable sources and authorities in nuclear energy such as the World Health Organization, U.S. Department of Labor or Tokyo Electric Power (175-176). The argument includes persuasive notes, as the writer uses the personal pronoun “we” to indicate that nuclear energy as he perceives it is a matter concerning all of us and the readers should adopt his reasoning. The writer uses a persuasive tone at times, although this militant style does not dominate the article nor does it settles a persuasive tone for the article. For instance, in this warrant “If you care about saving human lives, then you should like nuclear energy” (Pearson 175), the writer uses logical facts, appealing to people’s sensitivity and sense of reasoning for interpreting the presented facts according to his point of view. While the author is presenting sufficient facts and information to sustain his claim that the nuclear energy is not dangerous but beneficial for humans, it nevertheless leaves the readers to decide for themselves whether to agree or disagree with the elaborated arguments. However, considering the ironic tone on which the argumentation ends, wherein the writer dismantles the rebuttals by indicating that the reader might be killed by a toaster while still fearing the horrific effects of nuclear energy, the argument is persuasive. Therefore, Pearson is intentionally developing an informal argument, hiding in a relaxed informative approach his actual intentions of persuading his audience through appealing to people’s sensibility and sense of interpreting the facts as he presents them.
Works Cited
Pearson, Taylor. Why You Should Fear Your Toaster More than Nuclear Power. Texas: University of Texas. N.d. Print.
The Toulmin Model of Argumentation. Accessed 2 October 2014. Available at http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~digger/305/toulmin_model.htm. N.d. Web.
