According to Taylor Pearson’s article, nuclear power is dangerous and costly to humans (Slovic, 1987). He structured his controversy in the manner of definitive oration where he lays his allegations with evidence but also considers outside-the-box matters and revisits the other points of view. Taylor Pearson used different types of evidence to prove his controversy that nuclear power does not create dismay and completely contradict the idea that nuclear energy is a form of disaster by the use of evidence like account reports, quantitative data, and personal experience, which effectively supports his hypothesis that nuclear energy should not be feared but clinched on.
Taylor Pearson used rhetorical proficiency, such as logos, to compare objects that we notion are harmless, such as a toaster or brick, to nuclear power, which is considered a deadly resource. Someone might find it absurd to compare and contrast a deadly resource to a mere object we use daily without fear. Taylor Pearson powerfully argues that toasters can cause greater harm to us than nuclear power. Most people infer their fright of nuclear power based on the bandwagon of its dangerous characteristics stuck inside our heads. Comparing two properties exhibits logos because it makes a visible and logical relatedness that if a brick radiates more radiation than nuclear power plants, nuclear power may not be as severe as we conceive.
Moreover, when contrasting the fatality tolls from radiation to fatality from toasters, Pearson took the Chornobyl happening as his instance; he stated that it only took away the life of eighty-two persons, as most people who died were extremely exposed to the radiation (Cambray et al.,1987).To my surprise, when Pearson analyzed toaster fatalities to prove his controversy, more than three thousand people died and suffered from toaster fatalities in the first year in the United States. This rhetorical proficiency is very effective because many people globally don’t know that a toaster could cause a very high percentage of fatalities. Using a toaster and radiation as a way of contrast to stress that nuclear power is not dangerous to the extent of creating a panic attack amongst human beings has proved that the logo concept was a success.
Despite historical instances, Pearson also used proficient sentiments by simply using intermediary evidence to influence the audience on his stand and support of nuclear power; he used authority and facts as the key elements of their persuasion to his dear readers. Pearson partnered with John McCarthy, a computer science professor at Stanford, who was on the verge of proving that the “nuclear waste problem is exaggerated” (Woo, 1989). Pearson also heavily banked on several legitimate organizations, such as “The U.S. Energy Information Administration and the U.S. Food and Drugs Administration,” to help him move and push his agendas forward and make it happen rather than procrastinating. Working with other skillful individuals and organizations aided Pearson’s argument and enhanced his credibility and trust among his readers. most of the readers believed in his controversy, as several important, trustworthy individuals and organizations believed nuclear energy is not dangerous and is needed to improve and enlighten our day-to-day lives.
References
Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236(4799), 280-285.
Cambray, R. S., Cawse, P. A., Garland, J. A., Gibson, J. A. B., Johnson, P., Lewis, G. N. J., … & Wade, B. O. (1987). Observations on radioactivity from the Chernobyl accident. Nucl. Energy, 26(2), 77-101.
Woo, G. (1989). Is the risk of human intrusion exaggerated? In Risks associated with human intrusion at radioactive waste disposal sites.
