Gina Zavala

Rhetoric and Composition 2

RWS 1302, CRN 14458

The University of Texas at El Paso

Genre Analysis

1. Don't nuke the climate! James Hansen's nuclear fantasies exposed, from

https://theecologist.org/2015/nov/20/dont-nuke-climate-james-hansens-nuclear-fantasies-

exposed Source 1

2. What are the Pros and Cons of Nuclear Energy? from

https://letstalkscience.ca/educational-resources/stem-in-context/what-are-pros-and-cons-

nuclear-energy Source 2

Introduction

Nuclear Energy is a way to create energy from splitting atoms inside a reactor to heat water

into a steam and by turning on a turbine, it generates energy. It offers more than 10% of the world’s

electricity. Nuclear energy is a controversial subject because some people think it is dangerous to

the environment and people’s health. Others believe that it is a safe and clean alternative to other

ways of producing electricity. By doing an extensive research online, I was able to find two sources

that discussed nuclear energy but then in a different writing pattern and genre.

The two genres that will be focusing on are “What are the Pros and Cons of Nuclear

Energy?” (Source #1) and “Don't nuke the climate! James Hansen's nuclear fantasies exposed”

(Source #2).

1|Page
Analysis

Structure and delivery of the information in each source represents the genre conventions.

In source #1, the information is organized nicely by subtopics and bolded words so that the reader

can visualize the key points. On the other hand, Source #2 the subtopics start with bolded phrases

and from there, the argumentation is explained on bullet points.

Source #1 has less limitations than Source #2 due to the genre. Source #2 has less freedom

to express the data to persuade the reader because of its not so reliable references in comparison

to Source #1. Although they have a different structure, in both sources, the readability of the

material makes the source facilitate its purpose. However, I believe that Source #2 should have

more visuals to keep the reader involved.

By analyzing the audience and the purpose of the texts, both genres con be compared. For

example, in Source #1, the audience is intended to be to people interested in science that want to

expand their knowledge. Specifically, the audience wants to know the advantages and

disadvantages of nuclear energy with an analytical point of view. We can suppose that they already

know specifically what they will expect as the source states that they will be talking about the topic

related to the point-counterpoint regarding nuclear energy.

The purpose of Source #1 is to inform about the pros and cons regarding nuclear energy,

but it is more inclined into persuading the reader to think that nuclear energy is embracing the

future. On the other hand, the audience in Source #2 is more inclined to knowing if nuclear energy

is safe and environmentally friendly. The audience of Source #2 wants to know more in detail the

consequences of using nuclear energy to produce electricity and what other environmentalists

think about the topic.

2|Page
 On both sources, the language is formal and appropriate, and some specialized vocabulary

is used, like nitrous oxides, greenhouse gases, etc... However, both sources give access to

hyperlinks for its definition. Other language features I noticed is that on Source #1, there are a lot

of visuals like images and links to explanatory videos. The font is really user friendly and easy to

read. Most key words are bolded on both sources, however, Source #2 has smaller letter size, so

bolded words do not stand out as much as in Source #1. In contrast, Source #2 does not include a

lot of colors of visuals which makes it hard to read.

By considering the context and the rhetoric involved, we can observe how each source

appeals to the audience in different aspects. Source #1 tries to stablish credibility by showing data

on infographics that are based on governmental information, while Source #2 gives a lot of

hyperlinks based on independent consultant’s data and environmental organizations.

While Source #1 tries to evoke conscience about the planet’s ecosystem and how nuclear

energy can be a good or bad way to generate electricity, Source #2 tries to evoke rejection of the

use of nuclear activity to produce electricity.

Conclusion

Comparing the two sources, both have a different genre and follow specific patterns. While

Source #1 had more visuals and communicated its information mainly through videos and

infographics, Source #2 had more information from a slightly less reliable sources, like

independent consultant’s data. Both sources discussed the topic of nuclear energy and its effects it

leaves on the environment.

I believe that both genres were able to convey their own message. However, I believe that

Source #1 was more effective to do so due to how they portrait their information through

3|Page
infographics and videos, which makes readers like me, process information more easily. Source

#2 had more amount of information, but it was harder to keep me involved as Source #1 did.

After doing this genre analysis, I feel more inclined into the ideology of Source #1, which

kept me more engaged during this activity. It was probably that the genre was more organized and

had more appeal in comparison to Source #2. This activity has helped me understand genres in

writing and how they are relevant whenever it comes to investigate a topic.

4|Page