SampleIn-ClassEssayTests
Hereareseveral“A”leveltestsfromWeek1inWinterQuarter2016
E1AH Question: Who are Professor Muller’s naysayers? In
your opinion, are his responses to their objections sufficiently
strong to convince you – or do you find yourself siding with his
naysayers even after giving Muller’s counter-arguments careful
consideration? Be sure to include plenty of brief quotes and
examples from Muller’s article in framing your response. No
page number citations are needed.
Professor Muller’s naysayers are the U.S. government, politicians and
scientists, and the general public. In his article, he details each of his
naysayers’ positions on the debate on nuclear waste, before
convincingly delivering his own stance on the subject. His success in
convincing the reader is in part due to the great evidence he provides to
support his input, but it is mostly because of how he skillfully
discredits his naysayers.
Muller opens his article by setting up the debate on nuclear waste. The
first sentence provides the “pro-nuke” position: “As people recognize
the dangers of fossil fuel plants… nuclear power begins to look more
attractive.” He then delivers the “anti-nuke” opposition with, “But what
about the waste--all that highly radioactive debris that will endure for
thousands of years?” Throughout the article, he continues to explore
these two conflicting sides. He employs the basic template of “on one
hand / on the other hand” detailed in They Say, I Say. This makes him
out to be a person who is knowledgeable on the nuclear waste debate.
Because he is aware of the different sides to the debate and concedes to
each side’s reasonable points, he is in a good position to give us a
solution. In other words, he is setting up the reader to make his
argument credible and trustworthy.
He starts by removing the reader from any opinion they may have on
the topic: “Nuclear waste is one of the biggest technical issues that any
future president is likely to face.” By provoking the reader to think
about nuclear waste from the perspective of a future president, he
pushes us away from any existing biases we may possess. Muller than
discredits his naysayers. The U.S. government is pushing for the
continued use of nuclear technology by persisting that there is a way to
dispose of nuclear waste safely. How? By way of a nuclear waste
facility within Yucca Mountain. Muller swiftly delivers Yucca
Mountain’s seismic activity, and appears to temporarily assume the
“anti-nuke” position. Then, he goes on to talk about his experiencing
discussing Yucca Mountain with scientists and politicians. Muller says,
“Both are in favor of more research--scientists because that is what they
do, and politicians because they think the research will answer the key
questions. I don’t think it will.” This passage does two things: (1) he
discredits their position of carrying out more research, and (2) he goes
back to this position later to discredit this third naysayer, the public.
Muller asserts that the public does not take into account any
presidential responsibility or scientific perspective. They simply insist
on absolute security, which is impossible. Muller convincingly states
that the nuclear substances within Yucca Mountain are significantly
less dangerous than the nuclear substances that are buried in the ground
and could potentially seep into our water. He uses the public as his
biggest naysayer: “Raise the standards, increase the safety, do more
research...and in the process you will improve safety and frighten the
public.” He is suggesting that the public is doing more damage to their
argument than they are promoting it.
So what is Muller’s solution? “Put the waste in glass pellets in a
reasonably stable geologic formation, and start worrying about real
threats--such as the dangers of the continued burning of fossil fuels.”
Throughout the article, Muller creates an angle where it seems like
politicians and scientists are on one side and the public is on the other,
but then exposes that they are both working against the same side: a
solution to the problem nuclear waste. There are always uncertainties
and things we cannot control; he illustrates this with his examples: Will
Yucca Mountain explode? Even if it doesn’t now, it could in 10,000
years. And even if it doesn’t explode, the natural uranium in the ground
is more dangerous. Muller’s message is clear and makes an impact: the
solution is to abandon this futile debate, and act smart now.
English1AHonorsReadingTest#1onTomLutz’sDoingNothing
Winter2012Question:HowdoearlyAmericanformsoftheIdler(suchas
Franklin,Dennie,RipVanWinkle,etc.)differfromtheirEnglishantecedents?Ordo
they?
VickydeMontereyRichoux
TheAmericanIdlerstookformerEnglishdefinitionsofslackingorindolence
tonewextremes.Opportunity,resources,andrebellionfueledmoredramatic
polaritiesaboutworkandidlenessandbehaviors,butinmanywaystheyweremore
similarthantheywouldhaveappreciated.
JosephDenniewasconsideredbyLutztohavebeen“thefirsttrulyAmerican
slacker”onhissuspensionfromHarvardforrebelliousandinsolentbehavior.He
wasamontthefirstAmericanlawyerstomakewritinghisprofession.Hedidmany
jobshalf-heartedly,gainingrenownonlywith“TheLayPreacher,”acopyofwhich
hesubmittedfromthetavern.Heusedslackerpseudonyms,asdidJohnsonand
Mackenzie,hisEnglishcounterpartsinindolence.Alsosimilartothem,attimeshis
writingsuseddeepirony:Theindolentneedtobegivenmorallessonsinaform
theyarenottooindolenttotackle.”
SamuelJohnson,thecreatorof“TheIdler,”firstdefinedtheslackerinhis
earlyessaysin1758.LikeDennie,hebothexaltedandputdownidlers.“This
doubleness,”asLutzcallsit,becamethemainsignifierofindolencegoing
forward.“Everymanis,orwantstobe,anIdler,”Johnsonwrote.Yethewasproudof
thespeedandefficiencyofhisvastnewdictionary.Yetitwouldhavedisturbedhim
torealizehisfraternitywithFranklinwhenheputhimselfdownforhisown
indolenceinhisdiary,sayinghehad“sunkintogrossersluggishness.”
Franklinworkedhardandwellatmanyjobsinhisearlylife,finallysettlingona
print-shopwhenherealizedhowitservedtopublishhiswritings.Hisworkinglife
wasveryfull,buthisschedulewasself-determined,likethatofadilettante,even
whenheproducedprodigiously.Heespousedtheideaofappearingbusyoverbeing
busy,andinotherwaysbehavedcontrarytothelessonsofindustryinhisown
writings.Uponretirement,hefrustratedotherswithhisdissipations,suchas
airbathsanddinners,whilealsopursuingnewdiscoveriesinscience,particularly
withexperimentsusingelectricity.
Dennie’sroleasthefirstAmericanslackerandhiswritingsthatpreach
industrywhilehepursuesallpossibleindolence;Johnson’sself-deprecationfor
momentsofidlenesswhere,asLutzputit,“hesoundslikeFranklininhis
Autobiography,notsomehappy-go-luckyIdler”;andFranklinhimself,aprime
exampleofthepolarityandpendulumswingofindolenceandfocusedeffort,all
contributedtothemoderndefinitionsofworkandidlenesswhichLutzpointsout
“continuetostructurethedebatesaboutwork.”Alltheirworkandwriting
revolutionizedourthinkingaboutidleness.Intheseways,theyweremoresimilar
thandifferent.
TarekSaleh
ThederivationsoftheIdler,inauguratedbySamuelJohnsonin1758differ
littlefromeachother,anmoreoverallythemselvesindirectcontrasttothe
Industrial“modern”workethic.The“otiumcumdignitate”(leisurewithdignity)so
esteemedintheclassicalerahadbeendethronedbythenewinsistenceon“laborfor
labor’ssake,”anoxymoronpositedbythelikesofJohnLockeandJeremy
Bentham.“Idleness”thusrevealsitselftobeamisnomer,insteadstandingforthe
philosophicalandintellectualexerciseproselytizedbytheancientsand
subsequentlyJohnson,Mackenzie,andDennie,andforgottenbythenewstatusquo
andtheindustrialrenumerativespirit.IndeedtheAmericanIdlerandhisBritish
counterpartswerefrighteninglysimilar,inwhatwouldresultinadifferencein
degree,asopposedtokind.Franklin,especiallypost-“retirement,”in1742,would
cometoresembletheenlightened“lounger”espousedbytheScottishmanofletters,
HenryMackenzie.Franklinlivedan“Epicurean”existencewhileensconcedinParis
butatthesametimecanbesaidtohavebeenthemostproductivemanthere.
BenjaminFranklin,writingintheformatofletterstohisson,createdinhis
AutobiographyatestamenttoWeber’sProtestantworkethic.Hisdailyroutine
containslittleofwhatcanbeconstruedas“leisure,”containingsparseperiodsof
dailyreflectionandproactiveplanning.Coiningtheadage“timeismoney,”Franklin
strivestowardstheconceivedapexof“moralperfection”(64).RichardSaunders
(PoorRichard)becomesthemouthpieceintheAlmanac,andlater,TheWayto
Wealth,counselingagainstanindolenttemperament.“Sloth,likerust,consumes
fasterthanlaborwears,whiletheusedkeyisalwaysbright”(65).Thisquote
exemplifiesthisnewworkethic,soimmersedinanideologyofaccumulation,andso
waryofitscounterpart,spending.Theintrinsiccontradictionappearstostruggleits
waytothesurface,however,ashislaterlifeismarkedbyobservedlethargy,andan
emphasisoncomfortattheleast.JohnAdamsrevealstoushisdistastedfor
Franklin’sgildedlifestyle.Alas,hisinsistenceontheappearanceofanassiduous
lifestylestillpredominates.Franklin’scontemporarywouldassemblehislegionsto
counter-balancethisnewideologyandtheslacker/conformerdiscoursewould
neverbethesameagain.
TheIdlerwascreatedinEnglandin1758bySamuelJohnsonandthe
consequentAmericanrenditionswouldmarchtothesametunefromthenon.The
Idlersoughtthesocietalacceptanceandconferredvalueofintellectualrumination
maintainedinthepre-industrialerathathadsospontaneouslyjumpedshiptojoin
theranksofthemanufacturingclassanditssubservientlaborer.Johnsonwould
writethat“idlingallowsonetoappreciatelife,whilestrivingdestroys
appreciation.”ThiscredowouldbetakenupbyHenryMackenzieinScotlandin
1785,andsubsequentlyAbelSlugin1788.ThoughSlug’sinsistencethatidlenessis
thesolepre-requisiteforpure,unadulteratedpleasure,itdoesnotprecludehis
admissiontotheranksoftheintellecturalelite(perceived,Plato’sso-called
philosopher-kings.Wherethendidthedifferenceformacrossthepond?Well,they
didn’t.
JosephDennie,likehisEnglishcounterparts,consideredhimselfan
intellectualandafterhisdelayedgraduationfromHarvard,hewouldmeanderfrom
occupationtooccupationinsearchofhis“Medici,”anentitythatcouldappreciate
theetherealpursuitsloggedbythebrain,asopposedtothehands(transferred
throughwriting,ofcourse).Idlingwasthusacryfortheantiquatedlifestyleofhis
ancestors.Itwasnotinactivity(adistinctionpointedoutbyChrisPaulfrom
idletheory.com),butasuperstrataofintellectualexistence.Indeedlabor,forprofit
wasn’tthegoal(saveforhispredilectionforfashion,ofcourse).
WashingtonIrvingwaltzesontothesceneatthispoint.An“apprentice”ofsortsof
Dennie,Irvingsoughttopointouttheironyinherentintheloungerlifestyle.RipVan
Winkle,writtenby“DiedrichKnickerbocker,”andfoundby“GeoffreyCrayon,”falls
asleepafterdrinkingwithseveralfellowshehadaidedintransportingacontainer
ofale.Afterrising20yearslater,hefindsthathiswifeisdead,andhischildrenhave
grownup.Heispleasedthoughverydiscombobulated.Themerefacthoweverthat
heisnotdisturbed,thathisdenialofthefeverishnewworkethicanditsadvertised
meritsallowshimtomovethroughlifeinalethargicstupor,pointstothelarger
anti-workideology.Remunerationforprofitssakeisnotthegoal.AdmittedlyLutz
putsforththeideathatIrvingallowsforourdiscussionanddistastedforthis
indolentlifestyle,asmuchaswelongforrespitefromourbusylives.