Rebuttal Practice

A Price Too High

Is Nuclear Power Worth the Risk?

Link to the Text without the New York Times’ interference! 🙂

Bob Herbert asks the question in the Opinion pages of the New York Times. It’s pretty clear from the evidence he cites that he thinks the answer is No, it’s not worth the risk (or Yes, the price is too high, if that’s how you phrase the question).

Since he’s willing (sort of) to go on the record with his objections, let’s examine his essay as an opportunity for rebuttal, the better to understand what rebuttal means when it comes time to craft your own essays, days from now.

Insufficient Evidence Rebuttal
WHAT ISN’T: It’s not an effective rebuttal to request more evidence from the author. If the author offers insufficient evidence, or no evidence at all, one good piece of evidence of your own for an opposing point of view can easily refute it.
WHAT IS: Providing that good evidence is an effective rebuttal.

Irrelevant Evidence Rebuttal
WHAT ISN’T: It’s not an effective rebuttal to complain that you really don’t see what the evidence provided has to do with the argument. If the author offers irrelevant evidence, logic should tell you what the evidence does prove, or could prove.
WHAT IS: Pointing out that the evidence supports a different conclusion than the author’s is an effective rebuttal.

Inconclusive Evidence Rebuttal
WHAT ISN’T: It’s not an effective rebuttal to say that the evidence provided doesn’t quite add up to a proof. If the author offers substantial evidence that doesn’t actually support the argument though, as Bob Herbert does in A Price Too High?, you should be able to identify the logical fallacy at fault.
WHAT IS: Demonstrating how a correct interpretation of the evidence proves something other than the author’s argument is an effective rebuttal. In rebuttal of Bob Herbert’s four-paragraph description of cost overruns, for example, you could say: Herbert makes a good case for unanticipated costs of building nuclear power plants, but offers nothing to indicate that the higher costs are unsustainable. Is the electricity generated by nuclear plants more expensive per kilowatt-hour than coal-fired juice? If it is, he should have said so; probably would have said so. If in fact nuclear power is as affordable as traditional electricity, his fretting about cost overruns is a fruitless complaint without real substance.

Stacking the Deck Rebuttal
WHAT ISN’T: It’s not an effective rebuttal to say that the author is unfair to your “side” of the argument and should offer evidence to support your position. But if the author clearly (but usually stealthily) “stacks the deck” by suppressing evidence, as Rob Herbert does in A Price Too High?, you should be able to call him on it easily.
WHAT IS: You could say, for instance: Bob Herbert acts as if the only benefit we obtain from nuclear power is reduced greenhouse gas emissions. If that were the case, the price might truly be too high. But he neglects to mention nuclear power replaces unsustainable fossil fuels; makes us less dependent on foreign oil imports; eliminates the mercury, sulfur, and countless other emissions from burning coal, and improves our national security by making us less beholden to Middle East dictators.

False Analogy Rebuttal
TRUE ANALOGY / FALSE ANALOGY Analogy is prediction based on close comparisons. If I’m planning to release The Matrix Revolutions shortly after the outrageous success of The Matrix and The Matrix Reloaded, I point out that the new film shares the same writing and directing team, an almost identical cast, and the same subject matter as the first two films, and should therefore be a huge success too. What one difference made that analogy false? The new actress who played the Oracle? Or the fact that the script was anticlimactic and the audience was already saturated with better material?
WHAT ISN’T: When Bob Herbert compares the nuclear disaster at Fukushima with the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, he emphasizes that they were both almost unimaginable: nobody could have predicted them, he says. He uses that similarity to prove that a similar nuclear catastrophe could happen here. But surely the fact that Fukushima was unpredictable didn’t cause it to occur. It’s not an effective rebuttal to say that Herbert “uses false analogy” when comparing Fukushima to nuclear plants in the US. But it’s a start.
WHAT IS: An effective rebuttal of a false analogy is one that points out the essential difference that keeps the third Matrix from repeating the first two movies, or in this case, the essential difference between Japanese nuclear plants and US plants. If none are positioned as precariously as Fukushima—on massive, active earthquake-prone fault lines just hundreds of feet from the ocean—he’s got no business saying that the failure of one predicts the failure of the other.

False Choice Rebuttal
FALSE CHOICE Once a false analogy has been made, almost certainly a false choice will follow. Should we put money into getting people jobs, or should we slash government budgets, putting more people out of work? Neither alone may be the real answer, but debates are often framed between two such false choices. The third choice, that we should slash the parts of the budget that reduce employment and spend the savings putting people to work, never gets a hearing.
WHAT ISN’T: When Bob Herbert frames his second question: “whether it makes sense to follow through on plans to increase our reliance on nuclear power, thus heightening the risk of a terrible problem occurring here in the United States,” he’s offering a false choice based on the assumption that more nuclear power necessarily increases risk. It’s not an effective rebuttal to say that Herbert “offers a false choice” when asking us to choose energy futures, but it’s a start.
WHAT IS: An effective rebuttal of a false choice is one that points out the unnamed third choice, in this case, that every new nuclear plant either be built to address all known risks or not be built at all. Another would be to point to countries like France that, unlike Japan, have relied on nuclear power for almost all their energy needs for decades without serious incidents. Do we have to choose between Japan and no nukes? Or could we choose safe nukes?

In-Class Exercise

I’ve taken you through this survey of Rebuttal Techniques BEFORE asking you to read Bob Herbert’s Op-Ed about nuclear energy. Now that you have some background to help you evaluate his arguments, evaluate his persuasiveness in a Reply below. In particular, mention any arguments you think might be refutable, and on what basis.

About davidbdale

Inventor of and sole practitioner of 299-word Very Short Novels. www.davidbdale.wordpress.com
This entry was posted in Rebuttal Practice FA21. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Rebuttal Practice

  1. strawberryfields4 says:

    There are multiple faults with Bob Herbert’s argument. He begins by making the point that “catastrophes happen.” He mentions a few infamous natural disasters to remind the reader of these tragedies, then throws out his argument that increasing reliance on nuclear power increases the possibility for various disasters. This claim is a false analogy, insufficient evidence, and irrelevant. Yes, bad things happen in this world. Good things also happen. Highlighting random catastrophic events that have happened throughout the world have no correlation to what may result if the United States increases reliance on nuclear power. It attempts to scare the reader into thinking it is a “safer bet” to simply not make this change because various bad things have happened in the past and they COULD happen in this scenario. In reality, bad things can happen to anything at any time. It is just not enough to make these random comparisons. Furthermore, he fails to mention the importance of the location of Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi power station and the role it played in the disaster. Located on one of the Earth’s most active fault lines, the poor choice to build the plant there was an entirely different mistake. Herbert attempts to instill an overwhelming sense of fear in the reader and ultimately make them feel the risks are greater than the possible outcomes of increasing reliance on nuclear power. However, he does not provide evidence that has true relevance to his argument and makes overall weak comparisons.

    Like

  2. levixvice says:

    The argument for abandoning nuclear energy is factual in the way Hubert used both Japan’s Daiichi power station and New York City’s Indian Point plant to show how flawed their rectors are from the incidents caused by them, as well as the nuclear waste that has to be cautiously cleaned up without harming the environment or people around the vicinity. This is consistent with the cost and government loans that require nuclear power plants to be built with costly equipment. These plants would result in cost overruns that would harm investors, ratepayers, taxpayers, and shareholders, who would abandon the plant entirely. Although Hubert used this analogy for two accidents involving power plants, such as the fault line that broke in the Daiichi power station, and used it to explain the consequences of the United States using nuclear power, it was both falsified on his behalf, and he wants the reader to be against it.

    Like

  3. frogs02 says:

    Throughout this text, there are multiple things I would change. For example, the first two words, “Catastrophes happen.” This is not persuasive at all. It is basically saying oh there is a chance of this happening. It can be argued however so for a rebuttal argument it can be used. The author stated a few disasters such as that “no one thought the Interstate 35W bridge across the Mississippi River in Minneapolis would collapse. No one thought the Gulf of Mexico would be fouled to the horrible extent that it was by the BP oil spill. The awful convergence of disasters in Japan — a 9.0 earthquake followed by a tsunami and a devastating nuclear power emergency — seemed almost unimaginable.” This however has nothing to do with nuclear power. Accidents happen. The author is making it too obvious that he wants the reader to disagree with his argument.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s