1a. What are the chief reasons that Sweet supports nuclear-generated electricity?

i)
Despite the toxicity of nuclear waste, nuclear power plants produce small quantities
of it in comparison to the high waste output of coal plants.
ii)
The U.S. nuclear economy kills practically no one on a yearly basis unlike its
counterpart in the coal economy, which routinely kills tens of thousands of people
yearly by its toxic emissions.
iii)
Clean-coal technologies have yet to be demonstrated on a large scale commercially.
1b. What arguments against nuclear-generated electricity do Sweet mention or summarize?
i)
Storing nuclear or radioactive waste poses a challenge.
ii)
Nuclear and wind energy are between 25 and 75 percent more expensive than oldfashioned coal.
iii)
By using nuclear power, the U.S. may become more reliant on it and possibly
generate atomic bombs.
1c. When he introduces an argument against use of nuclear power, he welcomes their argument,
but retorts immediately in defense of his stance on nuclear power by using his own opinion as
well as credible background information.
2. The evidence Sweet uses that is the most effective in terms of logos is his reference to the past
mishaps in nuclear power history i.e. Chernobyl.
3.
Sweet appeals to ethos by his use of statistical information as well as background
information to support the points he was bringing across. Information regarding the Chernobyl
accident in April 1986 and the Three Mile Island accident in 1979 was used to show how much
more advanced the nuclear power had become from those past incidents. He appeals to pathos by
providing information about how coal-fired power plants are known to claims tens of thousands
of lives yearly, but the United States persists in using it. He also points out how the U.S. nuclear
economy kills virtually no one in a normal year. In answering some questions, he could have
expanded on his responses because it leaves the reader confused as to why he switched to
another subject so suddenly.
4. Sweets response is somewhat effective to the extent that he reveals that storing carbon waste
from coal plants poses much more of a problem than that of nuclear plants. He addresses the
issue with information that proves the argument about storing radioactive waste to be
exaggerating the actual problem. In comparison to coal plants, he pointed out that nuclear waste
emissions were to a minimum unlike coal, which releases mass emissions of waste. However, he
didnt go in depth in his rebuttal addressing the accusation against the storage of radioactive
waste.