In Anne Applebaum's column titled "If the Japanese Can't Build a Safe Reactor, Who Can?" on the Washington Post, she tries to prove that nuclear power plants represent a danger to our society. Although his column contains many facts from various sources, it is rather disorganized and does not provide strong rebuttals to his counterarguments. Her organization is the main mistake she made, which makes her argument mediocre at best. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Applebaum's arguments and supporting evidence are all found in his column, but the reader must play a connect-the-dark game to fully understand. the depth of his writing. In the second paragraph, she gives us information about the Fukushima reactor meltdown. However, it only explains the potential effects of a merger in paragraph six, where it states that "damages could include, for example, the destruction of a city or the poisoning of a country." This sentence does not even directly address the effects of Fukushima, but generalizes the damage of any nuclear meltdown. In the third paragraph, she asks the question "If the competent and technologically brilliant Japanese cannot build a completely safe reactor, who can?" ". This question seems to remain unanswered because the following paragraph contains its counterargument. It's only halfway through this paragraph that she finally decides to answer his question. She talks about a Franco-German company trying to build an “ultra-safe ‘new generation’ nuclear reactor.” These organizational failures create a section that is difficult to follow and leaves the reader moving from one thing to the next, and back again. The facts presented in Applebaum's column are exactly what she needs to make a good argument, and they're backed up by a few credible sources. However, due to the disorganization of these facts, his argument remains unproven. Some facts are almost irrelevant, as if they were only there to give Applebaum a sense of ethics, such as "a town of 25,000 inhabitants, wiped out by the tsunami that followed the massive earthquake of Friday ". This statement, although slightly relevant to Fukushima, has nothing to do with the safety of nuclear reactors. Applebaum also fails to place the facts where they are needed, such as in his rebuttal of his counterargument. His counter-argument states: “We can – and will – assert that the Japanese situation is extraordinary. Few countries are as vulnerable to natural disasters as Japan, and the scale of this earthquake is unprecedented. The only clear rebuttal left to the reader is “But there are other types of extraordinary situations and unprecedented circumstances.” Although the counterargument was well presented, it was not refuted at all. If Applebaum had provided examples of circumstances that could have caused such a catastrophe, then his argument could have been proven. However, she did not do so, leaving the reader to question the validity of her statement. This slight questioning leads to an argument as solid as jelly. It doesn't go all over the place, because the message she's trying to get across is there, but it's a little complicated and hard to swallow in one go. Keep in mind: this is just a sample. Get a custom paper now from our Applebaum's disorganization and poor refutation of his counterargument led to a credible, but unclear, column. Even if.