My initial thoughts on this passage was that, overall it clarified the “ they say I say” right to the point. Muller began with statistics about Nuclear Wast. He explained the half life and how long it would take for it to completely decompose. Evidence was provided which supported his response. In other words Manet to much statistics was provided. With the introduction being filled, it bores me as a reader.
Mullers idea was valid because A idea is like a opinion. “Nuclear waste” was based on his findings and his response to the findings. The comparison with other scientists gave information that supported his response. He was able to provide reasoning to why we should agree with him. I think I would change about his writing is the introduction. …show more content…
Thinking about it you would think that ounce something happens to the waste a domino fact will take place. Something can happen at any moment. The aftermath can lead to a greater leak cutting off all water supply and maybe harming others around by explosion or such. This is the issue that we continue on because we are a developing country finding ways to product more maybe even producing it faster than we could make it safe to live upon.
Muller is not credible because this is based on his opinion compared with other scientist research. Although he did provide evidence to support his response the statistics were about the future and not what could happen now. You know it was just his response because in his conclusion he confessed to it. His writing was based on others’ findings.
Readers need to pay attention to his response because it is important to understand the purpose of the writing. Mullers conclusion explains why he thinks the Nuclear waste issue is not important compared to other crisis in the world. His response also introduces the tone of his writing, responding with that things change and 10,000 years which assumes that in ten thousand years it will not be our
Mullers idea was valid because A idea is like a opinion. “Nuclear waste” was based on his findings and his response to the findings. The comparison with other scientists gave information that supported his response. He was able to provide reasoning to why we should agree with him. I think I would change about his writing is the introduction. …show more content…
Thinking about it you would think that ounce something happens to the waste a domino fact will take place. Something can happen at any moment. The aftermath can lead to a greater leak cutting off all water supply and maybe harming others around by explosion or such. This is the issue that we continue on because we are a developing country finding ways to product more maybe even producing it faster than we could make it safe to live upon.
Muller is not credible because this is based on his opinion compared with other scientist research. Although he did provide evidence to support his response the statistics were about the future and not what could happen now. You know it was just his response because in his conclusion he confessed to it. His writing was based on others’ findings.
Readers need to pay attention to his response because it is important to understand the purpose of the writing. Mullers conclusion explains why he thinks the Nuclear waste issue is not important compared to other crisis in the world. His response also introduces the tone of his writing, responding with that things change and 10,000 years which assumes that in ten thousand years it will not be our