Analysis of an article on Malaysia's nuclear power generation

Step1

• a. identify the issue in a text (compulsory item)
• b. identify the argument/author’s point of view in a text (compulsory item)
• c. recognise the types of supporting details in a text as well as any flaws in reasoning if any (compulsory item)
• d. evaluate the supports used in a text: (compulsory item)

• ii. objectivity
• iii. completeness
• iv. validity and credibility

Identify the assumptions/ the stated main ideas and/or formulate the implied main ideas

Identify instances of inductive and deductive reasoning in a text

Determine an author’s purpose,

Determine an author’s tone,

Determine an author’s intended audience

What is the issue being discussed?

Whether Malaysia should use nuclear power for electricity generation.

What is the author’s point of view regarding this issue?

If there is bias, how is it conveyed?

The author is against using nuclear power.

The author conveys his opposition through words with negative connotation such as ‘dangerous’ and ‘harmful’

Are there assumptions made by the author regarding the issue?

Assumptions are things that are left unsaid or not made explicit, things taken for granted. If so, what are the assumptions

1. That readers know what ‘radiation sickness’ means.
2. That the know-how regarding the disposal of nuclear waste is inaccessible,

What types of support are presented by the author to make his case? In other words, what kinds of evidence are used by the writer to back up the argument?

Remember, evidence or support can include research findings, case studies, personal experience or observation, examples, facts, comparisons, expert testimony or opinion

The author uses established historical facts of what happened in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and a local experience in Perak to support his claim. These are case studies of places that have experienced exposure to radioactive material. He also uses personal observation and personal opinions, but no research findings or expert testimony.

Is the support directly related to the argument? If the support is directly related to the argument, you can say that the support is relevant. Is the support based on relevant expertise?

Yes, the support seems directly related to the argument as he draws attentions to the dangers of radiation. Although he is not an expert on nuclear power- which he acknowledges- his examples are relevant, as he is citing well-known nuclear disastersthe disastrous effects have become common knowledge.

Is the support objective, using facts and other nonpersonal clear evidence? Is the support subjective, based on the writer’s limited personal experience or influenced by his or her emotions? Relevant support needs to use facts and clear evidence.

Yes, the support is objective as he has used facts to show us the dangers of radiation, citing the experiences of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Perak-all of these events are real and verifiable. Upd

Is the argument valid or logical, that is supported by relevant and verifiable evidence

Yes, it is generally valid as most of the support is relevant and verifiable. The article provides information regarding the negative effects of radiation which can be verified to be true.

Is the argument credible? Can you believe or trust the author? Has the author given precise sources of information, and can these sources be trusted? Is there enough relevant information from external sources or is the argument clouded by personal judgement? Is there refutation of opposing points to convince those on the opposite side of the issue?

It is generally credible to many because he is using powerful and well-documented examples (Hiroshima, Nagasaki)

However, since viable alternatives have not been discussed, he may not be able to convince those who see nuclear power as a source of energy to replace fossil fuels.