In Anne Applebaum's article titled "If the Japanese Can't Build a Safe Reactor, Who Can?" in the Washington Post attempts to demonstrate that nuclear power plants pose a danger to our society. Although his column contains many facts from various resources, it is rather disorganized and does not provide solid rebuttals to his counterarguments. His organization is the main mistake he made, making his argument subpar at best. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Applebaum's arguments and the evidence supporting them are all in his column, but the reader must play connect the dots to fully understand the depth of his writing. In the second paragraph he provides us with information on the Fukushima reactor meltdown. However, it does not explain the potential effects of a merger until paragraph six, where it states that “the harm could include, for example, the destruction of a city or the poisoning of a country.” This sentence doesn't even directly address the effects of Fukushima, but generalizes the damage of any nuclear meltdown. In the third paragraph he 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 next paragraph contains its counterargument. It's only halfway through this paragraph that he finally decides to answer his own question. It's about a Franco-German company trying to build a "super-safe, next-generation nuclear reactor." These organizational failures create a column that is difficult to follow and leaves the reader jumping from one thing to the next and back again. The facts stated in Applebaum's article are exactly what he needs to make a good argument and are supported by some credible sources. However, due to the disorganization of these facts, his thesis remains unproven. Some facts are almost irrelevant, as if they were only there to give Applebaum a sense of ethics, like “a city of 25,000, annihilated by the tsunami that followed Friday's massive earthquake.” This statement, while slightly relevant to Fukushima, has nothing to do with safe nuclear reactors. Applebaum also fails to place facts where they are needed, such as his rebuttal to his counterargument. His counterargument states: “It can – and will – be argued 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 the reader is left with is “But there are other kinds of extraordinary situations and unprecedented circumstances.” While the counterargument was well presented, it was not rebutted well at all. If Applebaum had provided examples of circumstances that would cause such a catastrophe, then his thesis could have been proven. However, he did not, leaving the reader to doubt the validity of his claim. This slight questioning leads to an argument as solid as jelly. It doesn't spill all over the place, because the message it's trying to convey is all there, but it's a little confusing and hard to digest all at once. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay Applebaum's disorganization and poor refutation of his counterargument resulted in a credible, but unclear, article. Even if its target audience is educated, it will have to.