Rhetorical Analysis: Anne Applebaum

        Anne Applebaum published an article on March 14, 2011. The article is called "If Japanese can't build a safe reactor, who can?" By the title, you can probably guess what it's about so I am not going to bore you with summarizing it, but I will say this is not an effective article. The reason I say this is because it does not have equal parts of rhetorical analysis. Rhetorical analyses are Ethos, Logos, Pathos, and Kairos. Applebaum's article has little to none of ethos. Here is an example of what she believed to be was ethos in her article; Applebaum calls Japan "competent and technologically brilliant." This is not ethos even though she complements Japan it is not considered ethos. The reason I say this is because we do not even know if Anne Applebaum is credible because she does not tell us what her relationship to reactors is and how she knows so much about them.  Without any of this information, her article does not have any ethos to it at all. 

Applebaum's article has pathos. In the 2nd paragraph, Applebaum says "letting off radioactive steam,""two explosions" and "worsen." She uses these words to make the reader scared, fearful, and worried about radioactive steam and scared of nuclear power plants. However, by the diction Applebaum was using it made it seem like the engineers trying to stop the nuclear power plant from exploding were in the wrong to do so because the plant was letting out radioactive steam. Her choice of diction makes the reader scared and worried. But, her choice of diction also makes her tone seem patronizing and contemptuous.  Applebaum is trying to be helpful in relaying the information she has but is making Japan seem superior and better than any other company or industry that is trying to build improved and safe power plants.  For example, Applebaum says "competent and technologically brilliant." She complementing Japan so much that it is going to make the reader believe every word she says. Applebaum also says she feels nothing but "admiration" for Japan and if anyone can prevent a disaster, "the Japanese can do it."  Both of these examples are proof that Applebaum's article has a tone pf patronizing. Applebaum is complementing and making Japan look smarter and greater than any other company that is trying to do the same. However, she is not only patronizing but she is also contemptuous with her writing in this article. The reason I say that her tone is also contemptuous is that she makes every company and industry that are trying to improve or better their nuclear reactors seem bad or not as good as Japan. For example, Applebaum wrote in the 4 paragraph 'super safe"next generation" nuclear reactor.' By Applebaum wording this paragraph like this it makes it seem like she is downgrading the Franco-German company that is trying to improve their nuclear reactors before they explode. Another example is when Applebaum uses the word "allegedly" when describing what the Franco-German company is trying to improve. By using the word allegedly when making this fact makes it seem like she doesn't believe them or trust them because of this word. But, the reason her tone is contemptuous is because of her diction describing every company that is trying to become safer.
                                                                                                       

Applebaum's writing does have Kairos. Now kairos is apart of rhetorical analysis but it is not commonly looked unless it is used when writing about a certain situation that has currently happened when writing their article.  But, in Applebaum's article, it is used. Applebaum wrote this article after three reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station lost their cooling capacities and after a tsunami hit Japan. This article has big kairos because of the Japan situation that happened. Applebaum's article also has logos in it aswell. Applebaum uses logos in paragraph 4 and in paragraph 5. For example, she says "nuclear plants emit no carbon" and she also gives the amounts of nuclear power plants that are under construction and that are being proposed and planned. This is good logos but there should be more logos added to the article. Applebaum's article is not effective because it does not have equal amounts of rhetorical analysis. With the equal amounts of ethos, logos, pathos, and kiaros makes the article more effective and well written.