Unthinkable?

Returning to the Dark Ages

The Argentinian poet Jorge Luis Borges once wrote “In Praise of
Darkness,” but by then he could not see. For most of us, the dark has
become something to distrust. In Britain, we have flooded the night with
sodium orange: even away from towns lights shine out across the
landscape and the sky, though it may be starless, is almost never the
Bible-black of Dylan Thomas’s imagination. How much we have lost –
and how welcome the news that some councils are dimming their street
lights to save money and energy, and in doing so reducing insidious
pollution. Some people will worry about the consequences – more crime
and more dangerous roads – but, done properly, darkening the streets
need not cause harm. Campaigners against light pollution such as British
Astronomical Association point out how badly our streets are lit at
present, with inefficient systems spilling light into sky. Fewer lights, but
better ones, would benefit everybody. No one is proposing turning off
lights at busy junctions, but in many places street lights should not shine
all night and in some they do not need to shine at all. Villagers with a
token lamp or two are not safer because of them but they are uglier. The
most atmospheric places in London are the darkest, such as the streets
around St James’s Park lit only with a few golden gas mantles. Artificial
light obliterates nature: scientists have shown the harm it does to
migrating birds, and to insects, and to sleeping humans. We should not
be afraid of the dark.
[The Guardian, 2006]

Questions-

1)Identify the claim of this editorial and its type.

2)What supporting points are provided for the claim? What kinds of
support are they?

3)What is the warrant? (in one sentence)

 4)Evaluate the overall effectiveness of the given passage, using your
own words to answer in one or two integrated paragraphs of at least 100
words. (Possible points you can discuss are the relevance of the topic or
claim, the quality of the support, the acknowledgement of counter-
arguments, the organization of the passage , the quality of the
language,etc.)

Claim:
Fewer lights but better ones would benefit everybody.

Support:
1. Evidence:
i. Artificial light obliterates nature: scientists have shown the
harm it does to migrating birds, and to insects, and to
sleeping humans.
ii. In Britain, we have flooded the night with sodium orange:
even away from towns lights shine out across the landscape
and the sky, though it may be starless, is almost never the
Bible-black of Dylan Thomas’s imagination.
iii. some councils are dimming their street lights to save money
and energy, and in doing so reducing insidious pollution.
iv. British Astronomical Association point out how badly our
streets are lit at present, with inefficient systems spilling
light into sky.
v. The most atmospheric places in London are the darkest, such
as the streets around St James’s Park lit only with a few
golden gas mantles.
 1. Motivational support:
i. Argentinian poet’s “In praise of darkness”
ii. Villagers with a token lamp or two are not safer because of
them but they are uglier.
iii. The most atmospheric places in London are the darkest, such
as the streets around St James’s Park lit only with a few
golden gas mantles.

Warrant: We should not be afraid of the dark.

Counter Argument:
i. For most of us, darkness is something to distrust.
ii. Some people will worry about the consequences- more crime
and more dangerous roads

Refutation of the Counter Argument:

i. We should not be afraid of the dark.
ii. but done properly, darkening the streets need not cause
harm
ii. No one is proposing turning off lights and at busy junctions but
in many places street lights should not shine all night and in some
they do not need to shine at all.