The essay under review is an assignment written by an undergraduate for

his academic writing class. The title of the essay is to discuss the boons
and banes of nuclear energy. The author’s aims are to persuade the
readers that using nuclear energy is bad and convince readers that there
are alternative energy sources. However, the essay is ineffective in
achieving his purposes due to confusing thoughts, noises and poor
credibility.
Firstly, the essay is confusing as the flow is disjoined. In paragraph 4, the
author tries to bring back the point (cost), which is the claim in paragraph
2. This obstructs the flow of the essay, which affects the logical and
systematic development of ideas because the point was brought out in
paragraph 2 but it is being elaborated in paragraph 4.
Secondly, the purposes are unclear. The author’s thesis statement calls for
a discussion on the boons and banes of nuclear energy. However, the
essay focuses primarily on the disadvantages of using nuclear energy.
There is no evidence of advantages from using this energy.
Thirdly, there are noises present in the essay. The first noise is, the author
discusses too much disadvantages of using nuclear energy and neglected
the advantages. The second noise is, there are frequent uses of pronouns,
which create informal expressions. In paragraph 1 line 6, the author
mentions that he will discuss whether nuclear energy is the only solution,
this diverge the readers’ attention from the main topic.
Lastly, the credibility of the author is poor. There are no proper citations in
the essay. This can be shown in paragraph 1, line 4 “...discredited by
scientists and researchers...” and paragraph 4, line 4 “Dr. Xenon’s claims
in cars magazines...” (Did not use correct style of citations). In other
words, the author is merely giving his own opinions, unjustified. People are
unlikely to take unsupported opinions seriously.
Furthermore, there are various types of fallacies such as hasty
generalization and slippery slope are spotted in the essay. For example, in
paragraph 2, line 13 “... nobody wants to empty their wallets to do so.”
and in paragraph 3, line 33, the author assumes that if we continue to use
nuclear energy, mishaps are bound to repeat. In all, fallacies mislead the
readers to believe what the author said is true without needing further
justification.
However, there are merits in the essay. The author has a strong stand and
did his best to provide an insight/analysis of what he thinks about the
nuclear energy. However, he is too focused on that and fails to provide the
essay with a balance, which is to state some of the advantages of nuclear
energy. As a result, the essay is weakened because the author did not
bring in counter arguments.

and look out for general patterns as well. stating clearly your overall assessment of the text . or where the writer may have fallen short. Write a critique of not more than 1000 words based on your evaluation. Submit a hardcopy to your tutor and make sure you upload your essay to Turnitin. Guidelines: In writing your essay. and CONCLUSION: 1. 2. Form a group of 4 to 5 to carry out this assignment. the essay is not thesis driven and it fails to bring the message across the audience. you should divide it into 3 sections: INTRODUCTION. Specific Instructions: 1. this will undermine the author’s credibility and the noises present in the essay affect the author’s stance and arguments. 4. 2. discuss your first impressions of the effectiveness of the article. Be sure to pay attention to specific details at every stage. Your essay should be type-written. HW0110 Effective Communication AY2013-2014 Semester 2 Assignment 1 (Group Work) 35% Due Date: Submit during tutorial class in Tutorial 7 (Week 8) _________________________________________________________________________ Introduction This assignment aims to consolidate what you have learnt from weeks 1-7. making clear your overall assessment of the article. and double-spaced. in Times New Roman 12 pt. this is also a test of your ability to work in a group. As a group assignment. you should give an overview of your essay by a. The author did not organize the essay well enough for the readers to read smoothly without any doubts. in order to explain why it is effective or ineffective in relation to the communication model. In the introduction. Read the essay on the next page “Nuclear Energy: Boon or Bane?” 3. Overview: You are required to: 1. There are no proper citations. BODY. Analyze the article systematically. Plan-Organize-Write-Edit-Re-write your essay. As a group. and explaining clearly with reference to specific details what the writer has done well. applying the principles of good group communication and problem-solving.In conclusion. 3.

However. Due to the stringent safety regulations that must be put in place to prevent a nuclear disaster. fossil fuels will soon become scare. In the conclusion. Unfortunately. in relation to the communication model 2. Grading You will be graded based on the level of critical analysis in your arguments. or rather. If the assignment is not received by the tutor after the 5th day (including Saturday and Sunday). taxpayers have to pour in huge amounts of money to set up these installations. The costs of nuclear power stations are colossal. most nations are dragging their feet in researching and developing alternative energy as nobody wants to empty their wallets to do so. further elaborate on your assessment with a systematic discussion of the text b. Appendix 1: Below is an essay written as an out-of-class assignment for an undergraduate academic writing class in Singapore. you should re-iterate the main points of your essay and sum up what can be learnt from your analysis. To me. these amounts of money could have been better utilized by investing in research and development of alternative energy sources. Nuclear Energy: Boon or Bane? A recent editorial in the local press with the headline ‘Nuclear energy: The time has come’ points to nuclear energy as the solution to the energy crisis that the world has to confront. you should a. provide specific evidence and examples from the text in support of your points 3. and my personal bet is that necessity will force us to cut down on energy consumption and tap into alternative energy sources sooner or later. it is understood that you are not submitting it. as well as organizational and academic writing skills. After Chernobyl and Fukushima. a stance that has been discredited by scientists and researchers all over the world in recent years. Why? Because everyone knows that oil and gas are still cheaper in comparison to the money needed for research on alternative energy. and why we need to think more clearly if nuclear energy is our only way out.b. Penalties for Late Submission (hardcopy and softcopy) Marks drop by 20% for each day that an assignment is submitted late. governments. Allow me now to jump into this ridiculous discussion on the boons and banes of nuclear energy. In the body. If governments were prepared to put the huge level of resources into . it is crazy that a journalist in such a high position would still hold such a position. summarizing or suggesting the main factors accounting for the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the text.

In any case. compared to coal. the benefit of cost effectiveness quickly diffuses And in the event that there is leakage or theft of nuclear materials and these fall into the wrong hands resulting in the making of dirty bombs. Decades after the industrial accident of 1986. contaminated forests. Nuclear waste today is generally stored in concrete basins filled with water. the release of radioactivity into the atmosphere led to contamination of places as far as the upland farms of Scotland where sheep are reared. and such wastes remain radioactive for thousands of years. Everybody knew that nuclear waste isn't biodegradable and hence threatening to all living creatures. the maintenance cost of nuclear plants. Truth is after decades of well-funded and thorough research. the prospects of alternative energy will largely increase and even materialize in the near future. No doubt. strips of Ukraine near the disaster site continued to record horrific cancer rates. Even after the farms were declared radioactive free by authorities many years later. rampant diseases? Chernobyl’s the best illustration of such catastrophes caused by nuclear energy plants. Chernobyl and Fukushima pollute the atmosphere and leave a radioactive legacy that will hang around for generations to come. Is this the kind of world we want to leave behind for our children? Polluted rivers. I am sure few people in real life would like the idea of living in the vicinity of one. Although this hasn’t come true. tainted food. Outside the region. Unlike Homer Simpson who lives in Springfield where a nuclear plant is located. nuclear energy can produce more kilowatts of energy for much less. . wind and solar energy. As I’ve mention in the beginning.research and development of alternative energy sources that have now been going into developing nuclear energy. We need to think twice concerning Dr. we still do not know how to get rid of high level radioactive waste safely. But if you factor in the total costs of building nuclear plants with all the stringent safety requirements. blame it on the unreliable predictions of reports in the 1970s that projected that fossil fuels would run out in two decades. the stigma that their farm produces are contaminated remain. Xenon’s claim in Cars magazine that nuclear energy produce little pollutants (he can keep his nuclear-powered cars to himself). Such tragedies are waiting to repeat themselves if we allow nuclear power stations to continue to stay in business. So what if nuclear energy is carbon free and produce more electricity than solar and wind energy? Other fans of nuclear energy like to outline its cost effectiveness as the most attractive factor to start generating nuclear energy. there’s no reason for us to be complacent and continue to fall back on fossil fuels instead of looking out for alternative sources. the cost in terms of human life as a result of terrorist acts will render any talk of cost effectiveness invalid and redundant. the decommissioning cost of old power plants as well as the tedious efforts and high cost of storing nuclear waste and disposal.

working in tandem with mercenary local and national officials. Developed nations pour in money to help underdeveloped nations develop nuclear power technology not for altruistic reasons but to make these poorer nations indebted to them and to control them. North Korea and France. safety and corruption. will not run out some day? Worst." The world faces an energy crisis. The inefficiency of alternative energy technologies may make them impractical as solutions for our energy needs. and could sustain in the long run . the champions of nuclear energy still argue that uranium is more reliable than solar and wind energy. the development of nuclear power in turn fuels the proliferation of nuclear weapons. this nobody can deny. This may be truth but we can at least say that no human rights were trampled on in the building of wind mills. no regulatory background in the field and some questionable records on quality control.Who’s to say that uranium. whether by coincidence or deliberation that nobody knows." These are the shrewd observations of Professor Peter Bradford. solar panels and hydroelectric dams. which is needed for the production of nuclear energy. but wise to adopt solutions that will serve the greater good. Israel. Pakistan. Militarily. The detrimental effects of nuclear power on humans. but the threat posed by nuclear power to human existence makes alternative energy sources the safer and more viable way to go. There is evident that the advocates of nuclear energy done so not because they are serious about solving the energy crisis but because they recognize that whoever leads in nuclear development has an edge politically and militarily in the world stage. these alternative energy forms can come to a halt. South Africa. "six did so with political cover and/or technical support from their supposedly peaceful nuclear program . are essentially culpable of genocide when the indigenous people develop and die from cancer due to contact with hazardous nuclear materials. Indeed. The greedy industrialists. which is a zero sum game for all parties involved. It’s hard to see how ‘alternative’ sources of energy will fulfill growing power needs but we must not be fooled into believing that nuclear energy is the way to go. Despite these ugly truths. the environment and wildlife especially aquatic life are clear for all to see. including North America and Europe. not only displace these people from their lands but by building nuclear plants on these lands or in the vicinity. uranium mining is often carried out in lands belonging to traditional communities or indigenous people in parts of the world.India. Less developed countries with nuclear power stations actually have higher safety risks because these are the countries with “little experience with nuclear energy. The pros and cons of nuclear energy have been outlined in this discussion and the question whether nuclear energy is the answer to our energy crisis is left to the reader’s own discretion. It would be unwise to add problem to problem. Jim Green has reported boldly that of the 10 nations that have developed nuclear weapons. They claimed that in places where the sun is not shining or when the wind is not blowing.