If the Japanese Can’t Build a Safe Reactor, Who Can?

            

       An AP student, Tamar Demby wrote a rhetorical analysis on the effectiveness of Anne Applebaum’s essay on the massive earthquake and tsunami that hit Japan and severely damaged nuclear reactors. In Tamar Demby’s review she criticizes Applebaum’s essay by only focusing on the negative aspects of it. In her analysis her position is basically mentioning the pessimistic ideas and the mistakes Applebaum did, and what she did not focus on. Demby also stated that Applebaum did not remain in her field, she went on about unimportant information which has nothing to do with her career. She is saying that Applebaum did not present a clear viewpoint with solid evidence, and she was only using logos and pathos but left out ethos.

            In my point of view, Demby’s analysis brought my attention to many details in Applebaum’s essay that I was not aware of, or missed out. There is information I disagree with and there are some that I agree with. I believe that she is a bit too harsh on the essay because Applebaum focuses on very important information and explains and supports her ideas. There might be times where she states something but does not fully back it up. If you use logos, pathos, and ethos, you essay will automatically be stronger and hold more facts and values. An essay does not require holding these three rhetorical tools, but applying them will only make it better.

            Demby’s analysis stated factual information, which could have made Applebaum’s essay much better. There are plenty of statements Applebaum fails to support, and by adding more facts and statistics and fewer opinions maybe the essay will be much better and stronger. She can build ethos and logos by using pathos, and by connecting her opinions to her facts. From my standpoint, the audience can predict from Demby’s analysis that she can be against Applebaum, which might not be the case, but that is the impression she gives. Demby’s criticisms are what will truly improve this essay because she clearly states what is wrong and what needs to be done.