Read the pro/con article about nuclear energy to limit greenhouse gases. Write a brief response to explain which of the two articles makes a weaker argument. Give two or three examples of the kinds of details the author would need to provide in his article to strengthen the current argument. Respond to at least two other student entries.
64 Comments
alexander
2/9/2016 11:23:22 am
pro is the one which needs help and it will be better if it tells why you think it might be better or tell why con is wrong!!
Reply
Matisse
2/9/2016 11:41:42 am
I disagree because the con author backed his/her statement up with really good evidence.
Reply
Raphael
2/9/2016 11:52:08 am
I disagree because of the posibilities a tornado could wreck the entire plants spreading the nuclear waste or an earthquake break plant flooding the area or even a sinkhole could just destroy the plant completely so or source of power would just all be gone... I disagree with you because I don't think PRO needs help. I also don't think one article should state why something else is wrong. I think they should only give details to support their own opinion. I think it would be acceptable if one gave very little bad feedback about the other like PRO and unlike CON.
Reply
Malcolm
2/9/2016 11:54:59 am
I diagree Alexander if that is your real name. Because in the pro artical it states that nobody has died in a nuclear power plant in 50 years and even france is trying to stop global warming and we can use both wind and nuclear power so I think it is the Con argument that needs help not the pro argument.In the pro it even states the goal to when they want no more global warming and that year is 2050
Reply
Alexandrah
2/9/2016 01:24:29 pm
I agree that pro needs help, but it did tell why it thought it was better. It said it was more dependable to show at least 1 example.
Reply
hector
2/9/2016 11:33:50 am
I think a nuclear power plant is safer and better for all because 1.nuclear power plants work 24/7. 2.solar and windmills don't run all the time. 3.It clearly states on the article that nobody I mean NOBODY has died from a nuclear power leak. 4. It also CLEARLY states that by the year 2040 there will be more than 9 billion people.I think it is better because nuclear power plants will be reducing global warming and getting power for all the over 9 billion people.
Reply
sofia
2/9/2016 11:56:34 am
I agree with hector because I also think that nuclear plants are safer to .
Reply
Rheanna
2/9/2016 11:58:37 am
I agree because the writer did not give enough information about what they are going to do.
Reply
Raphael
2/9/2016 11:59:34 am
I disagree because even thought nobody has died from the nuclear power plant doesn't mean they won't now also you could just store all the power given off of the windmills or solar panel in a giant cell and buy more solar panels and windmills because they are just SO CHEAP!
Reply
hector
2/9/2016 01:27:21 pm
so raphael do you agree or not?
Malcolm
2/9/2016 12:01:29 pm
Gumball:I agree with you hector that nuclear power is better because it does say there was no deaths it does state it runs all day and wind and solar power does not alwayswork alday and it never works ok and if you agree we will make the world a better place
Reply
Zoe
2/9/2016 12:01:49 pm
I agree with all the reasons you gave but, you didn't really answer the prompt. Prompt being to state which article you think has a weaker argument and to give two or three details you think the author should use to make his/her article have a stronger argument.
Reply
Cecily :)
2/9/2016 12:03:03 pm
I highly agree with you but, I think it is safer to use wind and solar power because the text states that Japan's Fukashima plant leaked radiation-contaminated water poisoning the surrounding area, even thought I think the PRO article is stronger.
Reply
Leah
2/9/2016 01:06:45 pm
I agree with you that no one has died from nuclear energy
Reply
Owen
2/9/2016 01:23:32 pm
I disagree because the nuclear plant needs $9 billion to build and more to take down.
Reply
Alexandrah
2/9/2016 01:26:13 pm
I disagree with Hector because they can leak stuff that can kill people.
Reply
hector
2/9/2016 01:28:55 pm
there has been NO deaths
Leah
2/9/2016 11:35:12 am
I think that the PRO side is weaker because we cant do anything if we die first. We can die because of the nuclear energy. I think that the author should tell more about why they should use nuclear energy,and why not another kind of energy.
Reply
Rianne
2/9/2016 11:51:05 am
I do agree with you because since the author of the pros didn't mention why they should use nuclear power more.
Reply
Mia
2/9/2016 11:58:31 am
I think that the nuclear power is bad because it did poison people and they also had to leave there homes.
Mischa
2/9/2016 11:58:55 am
I agree that the PRO side is weaker because the author states many reasons why solar and wind energy is better and safer for the planet.
Reply
Logan
2/9/2016 11:36:56 am
For the PRO, I think that the author does not really think that nuclear power is dangerous. They say "The United states has had nuclear power plants for more than 50 years and not one person had been killed from the nuclear radiation." I agree with the author that wrote the PRO because if for a long time the nuclear radiations killed none, then none should worry about the nuclear energy and know that it is safe.
Reply
Rianne
2/9/2016 11:46:32 am
I do agree with you because they both backed each others opinion.
Reply
Rheanna
2/9/2016 12:03:02 pm
I agree because it states itdose not use energy
Chloe
2/9/2016 01:06:20 pm
I agree because in the CON story it says that in japan that there was once an earthquake and all the nuclear spilled.
Reply
Matisse
2/9/2016 11:39:02 am
I think that the pro author had a weaker argument because the con author backed his/her statement up with strong evidence. The pro also backed his/her statement up but not as strongly.
Reply
kiyan
2/9/2016 11:58:33 am
I think that the con has a stronger argument because the pro has no negative statement about what the con thinks is the best way to go. Also the pro talks a lot about the danger and risk of using nuclear energy. The con has a very strong argument because he says the down side of using nuclear energy and he uses an example of a very bad incident that took place in another country and even though no one was harmed from radiation in our country, it does not mean that it would never happen.
Reply
Leah
2/9/2016 01:05:26 pm
I agree with you because we need to use the way we already have
Chloe
2/9/2016 01:08:53 pm
I agree because the PRO story has nothing that says that nuclear is bad. The Con story actually says some nuclear reasons that the PRO story should have.
Cecily :)
2/9/2016 01:17:03 pm
I strongly disagree with you because in an article you should not give as many negative comments. Also, the PRO author gives more details on why nuclear power is better and the CON author only gave negative comments not as many facts. I think the PRO author was far far more convincing than the CON author even though I don't think nuclear power is a good idea because of what happened in Japan.
Mischa
2/9/2016 12:02:16 pm
I agree because the CON author explained better why nuclear power is dangerous for the planet.
Reply
Jacob
2/9/2016 11:40:56 am
I think that the fact that they use nuke energy is awesome. NUKES ARE AMAZING. So to answer the question,I think that the pro and con authors ( artical writers) are very descriptive.
Reply
hector
2/9/2016 11:42:24 am
I do not agree with you because the world would not be safer when we ARE alive. think about the GLOBAL WARMING not the electricity.
Reply
Rianne
2/9/2016 11:43:23 am
One thing from each article is that first, it stated on the pros article is that the U.S. should use more nuclear power and the cons article states that the U.S. should use renewable energy. One detail that the author from the pros needs is that he should say all the things using nuclear power solves. Another is that he should mention is all the things nuclear power can do than renewable energy. Two things the author from the cons should mention all the things renewable energy can do than nuclear energy and he should also mention how renewable energy can help the world.
Reply
Allie
2/9/2016 11:44:58 am
I agree because the Pro side does seem a little bit weaker because it is true that we can't do something if we die. I disagree at the same time because in the text it says that nuclear plants are very safe, so it kind of doesn't make sense.
Reply
Raphael
2/9/2016 11:45:32 am
The Pro article needs more improving because it doesn't go over every detail or event that could possibly happen,even thought the power plant hasn't unsafe 50 years doesn't mean a natural disaster wreck it like from the Con article it says "In 2011, Fukushima, Japan, had a terrible earthquake. A nuclear plant was damaged and radioactive water leaked out. The surrounding area was poisoned and people were forced to leave. It is always possible that something like that could happen here." Also, the Con article it mentions that it costs $9 million to even set up the plant. It also says there is no safe way to the nuclear waste once it out of the plant. Just imagine the entire world with the Fukushima earthquake accident... The land wouldn't even be able to support the life of pretty much every thing.
Reply
BEATRICE
2/9/2016 01:06:47 pm
Exactly. The PRO section doesn't go over the possibilities of a earthquake and it just says everything is fine and it says that in the United states no one has gotten killed or inured having to do with a nuclear plant but if they want people around the globe to use nuclear power they need to make sure it is safe, and obviously it is not because an earthquake knocked one over in Japan.
Reply
isaac
2/9/2016 11:46:02 am
It makes a weaker argument because then the nuclear power can kill people but they are like electricity. They should not use nuclear power
Reply
Cecily :)
2/9/2016 11:46:12 am
I think the CON article is weaker because in the PRO article the text states that nuclear energy is more reliable than wind and solar energy and in the CON article it does not talk about some important details like this. Also, in the PRO article it gives more details to support how nuclear energy is better while in the other article the author mostly states how nuclear energy is bad. Even though I am not a huge fan of nuclear energy, this article helped me understand better about it. I just think the CON article was a little weaker than the PRO article even though I could understand why they were stating this opinion.
Reply
Anthea
2/9/2016 11:58:29 am
Cecily, I agree with you when you said that the PRO article had a little bit more explanations than the CON article.
Reply
KRISTE
2/9/2016 01:01:50 pm
I can't believe you almost wrote the same things I did. I agree with you on how you said that Pro article gave you more information on how nuclear is better when the Con article only states how nuclear is bad.
Reply
Rachel
2/9/2016 01:08:39 pm
I disagree because the PRO article just gave one thing that nuclear energy can do when the CON article gave more than one and it states that countries should reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Reply
LENA
2/9/2016 11:46:27 am
My opinion about which perspective is weaker is, I think the pro section of the article is weaker. The author of the pro section could strengthen the article by adding interesting facts on why nuclear gas is better and why it is safe. This would have gotten the reader, like myself more interested in what he had to say. Another thing the author do to strengthen the article is list more facts on why it is safe because this makes the readers think he doesn't know what he is talking about. One last thing he can do is in his introduction to hook the readers by telling why nuclear power is the best. This is why I think the pro section is weaker.
Reply
BEATRICE
2/9/2016 12:02:01 pm
I agree, and the PRO section did not really say why the nuclear power is safer and it just says that it is. And the CON section proved that the PRO author was wrong by giving the example of the earthquake.
Reply
SOFIA
2/9/2016 11:50:16 am
In my opinion , I think that the weaker answer was the one that did the con . I think that author had a weaker answer because he had a smaller answer .He basically only wrote about an earth quake and how the earth quake caused the nuclear plant to leak. It was a good answer but I think he could have done more . I think his would be better if he had more explanations . I also think that the author that did the pro was more stronger because he said that nothing has ever gone wrong with the nuclear plants . And also wrote a lot more expanations .
Reply
Anthea
2/9/2016 12:01:42 pm
I agree with you when you say that the CON article needed a better explanation as to why we shouldn't use the nuclear power plants. The author didn't really give a clear explanation.
Reply
Zoe
2/9/2016 11:50:49 am
In my opinion, I think that the article that represents
Reply
Mischa
2/9/2016 11:54:38 am
I think the PRO side makes a weaker argument because even when we have made safe power plants, there are still many natural disasters that may occur and cause the power plant to leak radiation. Also 9 billion dollars is a lot of money, even for some states. The CON side gives more reasons why we should use solar and wind power to help global warming.
Reply
Anthea
2/9/2016 11:55:56 am
I think that the CON author's argument was weaker because it didn't seem like he had enough reasons to why we shouldn't use nuclear power plants. It seemed to me that the only clear/main reason the author had was that the power plants weren't safe enough.
Reply
KRISTE
2/9/2016 01:10:14 pm
I agree with you because I also realized that the Con didn't have enough evidence/ reasons to support his reasons on why nuclear is worse than solar energy and winds.
Reply
Lena
2/9/2016 01:16:38 pm
I disagree because I think that the con argument was perfect and got you to read more.
Reply
BEATRICE
2/9/2016 11:58:06 am
I think PRO needed help because CON actually had the possibilities of something happening, and PRO just said nothing was going to happen and that is all.
Reply
Rachel
2/9/2016 01:01:15 pm
I agree because the PRO article just gave one thing that nuclear energy can do, when the CON article gave more than one.
Reply
Rachel
2/9/2016 11:59:04 am
I think the PRO article makes a weaker argument because the article is just stating about one way that nuclear energy can help, but the CON article is stating that nuclear energy is just part of the answer. Mark should not give one way nuclear energy can help, but two or three ways it could help. Also, Mark can talk about important topics about the energy, not have one long paragraph about a topic.
Reply
KRISTE
2/9/2016 12:05:21 pm
It was kind of hard to decide, but I think the Con's argument was weaker because the writer of the Con section is only taking about how nuclear is bad instead of why sun and wind is better than nuclear. Also, the writer of the Con writer doesn't state that the solar energy and winds are safe or reliable like how the Pro writer did. I think the Con writer should have included what important benefits and vales relying on solar energy brings to the people. I also think that he should talk about in what sides solar energy and winds are better. While reading the article, the Pro's writer was more convincing.
Reply
Cecily :)
2/9/2016 01:08:35 pm
Kristie, I totally agree with you because you stated the thing that were wrong with the CON article like how the PRO article stated the reliability and the CON article did not. I also agree that it was more convincing.
Reply
Lena
2/9/2016 01:15:23 pm
I disagree because I think that the con argument was more interesting to read about.
Reply
Ranya
2/9/2016 01:16:26 pm
I think that the cons article made a weaker argument because, he did not give as much as the pros article.
Reply
Owen
2/9/2016 01:21:19 pm
Yes, it seemed like he didn't want to win the argument.
Reply
Owen
2/9/2016 01:19:47 pm
I think that the renewable energy would be better.
Reply
Alexandrah
2/9/2016 01:22:18 pm
I think that Pro makes a weaker argument because it is saying that wind and solar are not as good. I know that is an opinion, but I think that I would rather have a 100 percent safe and not dependable than an unsafe and dependable. What Pro could have done is give more examples. Con gave examples like how it is dangerous and expensive to have power plants.
Reply
Elie
2/9/2016 01:27:22 pm
In my opinion I think the PRO side is weaker because it says on the CON side that in 2011 a earthquake stuck Fukushima,Japan and the neclear was hit and everything(I mean everything)in it's path/area and
Reply
Leo
2/9/2016 01:28:46 pm
To me, I agree with the pro side for one reason and that is because carbon pollution. That is why the pro side is stronger!
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorHello! My name is Mrs. Chenu and I'm a 4th grade teacher at Eagle Rock Elementary Gifted and High Ability Magnet. Archives
November 2016
Categories |