Reading Assessment: Selections from Cradle to Cradle

EAPP 8330: Critical Reading and Debate

Name: Shanshan Liu/ITED

Directions: Skim the Introduction of the book Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make
Things (McDonough & Braungart, 2002) in order to answer the questions below.

A. Determining the Authors Purpose (1 point each)

1. What problem are the authors identifying?

The fundamental flaws in the industrial revolutions design. The manufactory industry
and the consumption is deteriorating the environment because conventional
methods of extraction, manufacture, and disposal are destructive to the natural
world. Environmentalists often characterize business as bad and industry itself (and
the growth it demands) as inevitably destructive.

2. What are the complexities of this issue?

The prosperity of manufactory industry and the healthy environment cannot thrive in
the same world. In order to protect the environment, we have to limit production
and growth, this will lead to the limit of our consumption in daily life.

3. For whom is this topic important and why?

Environmentalism. Architect. From a material and ecological standpoint, they want to

build something that environmentally friendly and has good intention. Because
neither the health of natural systems, not an awareness of their delicacy, complexity,
and interconnectedness, have been part of the industrial design agenda.

B. Interpreting the Evidence (2 points each)

Please answer each of the following questions in 2 3 complete sentences. For each question,
you must include specific evidence from the reading to support your answer.

1. Read paragraphs 1 2 to answer the following questions. Do the authors support the
cradle-to-grave model? Why or why not?

The author does not support the cradle-to-grave model. Because the valuable
materials or resources distracted to build things and consumer actually has very little
to consume but instead has to deal with its detritus. The author also provided

1
 evidence that more than 90 percent of materials extracted to make durable goods in
the US become waste almost immediately. Many products are designed with built-in
obsolescence and it is often cheaper to buy a new version than to repair the old
one.

2. Read paragraphs 3 5 to answer the following questions. According to the authors, is

the International Style a positive or negative product design? What reasons do they
give to support their claim?

The authors opinion is that the International Style is a negative product design. The
International Style movement were formed ostensibly in opposition to the cradle-to -
grave era manifested its flaws. The International Style has been far away from its
goals which were social as well as aesthetic since it evolved into a bland, uniform
structure isolated from the local culture, nature, energy and material flows. It reflects
little of any of a regions distinctness or style.

C. Outlining the Argument Structure (6 points total)

Complete the argument outline for the sections From Cradle to Grave and One Size Fits All.
The main claim/thesis is listed below. Please add specific warrants/reasons and evidence from
the text that support the main claim. A completed outline will include two reasons and 2 3
pieces of evidence for each reason. The second reason has been done for you.

Main Claim / Thesis: Cradle-to-grave designs and one-size-fits-all solutions are problematic

Reason 1: because Cradle-to-grave model could cause huge waste of valuable material
and resources

Evidence: A waste of valuable resources. The biodegradable materials could

decompose and return biological nutrients to the soil but instead heaped in a landfill
or incinerator.

Evidence: Resources are extracted and eventually disposed because it is designed for
you to throw away.

2
 Evidence: Consumption are encouraged. It is often cheaper to buy a new version so
the customers are encouraged to get rid of the thing and buy a new model

Reason 2: because one size fits all solutions assume that needs are the same everywhere.

Evidence: such buildings reflect little if any of a regions distinctness or style. They
often stand out like sore thumbs from the surrounding landscape.

Evidence: whoever use this style because it is easy and cheap and makes architecture
uniform externally and even the interiors are equally uninspiring.

Directions: Read the section A Strategy of Tragedy, or a Strategy of Change (pp. 42 44) to
answer the questions below. For each question, circle (or highlight) the best answer to the
question.

D. Making Inferences (1 point each)

1. The authors attitude toward industrialists, engineers, designers, and developers

(p. 43) can best be described as:

a. resentful
b. empathetic
c. optimistic
d. critical
e. cheerful

2. The passage (pp. 42 44) is most likely intended to

a. describe the main problems of industrial infrastructure.

b. provide a definition of intergenerational remote tyranny.
c. place blame on designers for the problems we face today.
d. motivate people to change unintelligent design problems.
e. explain a strategy that can be used to implement change.

3. The final paragraph on page 44 is most likely intended to

a. ask the readers a question.

b. introduce new terminology.
c. present the subsequent topics.
d. define important movements.
e. describe a possible solution.

3
E. Analyzing the Argument (4 points total)

Please answer the following question in a well-structured paragraph. You must include specific
evidence from the reading to support your answer.

1. Is the reasoning and evidence convincing? Why or why not? (Consider: How do the
authors acknowledge the complexities of the issue? Do the authors include a
counterargument (concession + refutation)? What is the tone of the
counterargument? Do the authors rely on logos, pathos, or ethos to persuade their
readers? Have the authors chosen the correct approach(es) for the intended
audience? Is the evidence credible and sufficient given the audience and the context
of the argument?)

In my opinion, the reason and the evidence provided by the author is quite
convincing for the following reasons:
First, the authors acknowledging the complexities of the issue in a way by
contracting the facts that the boosting of the manufacture by industrialization
provide economic benefit and encourage consumption while put people in a polluted
and toxically environment.
Second, the authors include a counterargument of a concession and refutation by
acknowledging the positive social change brought by the industrial revolution which
the mass production make people have access to the previously unattainable item
thus improved standards of living as wage increase. And rebuttal by saying the design
goals not only to be practical, profitable, efficient and linear but as part of a larger
system of the world are imperfect and the problematic of the industrial design. The
tone of the counterargument is concerned and critical.
The authors rely on logos, ethos, and pathos to persuade the readers. By providing
the facts of the disposal of the products and the unifying models of architect the
authors appeal to logic, and try to persuade the readers by reason. Also using eathos
by given the senario of a mom have her baby play with a toy which may danger to
childrens health. They also provide evidence of pathos by using the example of
Titanic.
I thing the authors chosen the correct approaches for the intended audience and
provide suficient and credible evidence to support the argument. I enjoy reading this
article and found it convincing becase the author not only provide concret examples
and valid infromation and data to illustrate the issue but also address the issue in a
way that is more appealing by given many examples. The author also provide
sufficient background knowledge and context for intended reader to better
understand the issue.