Is it the devil in the bottle or Noah's Ark

Teaching purposes:

1. Understand the characteristics of the combination of refutation and argumentation, and learn the refutation method of this article .

2. Understand and understand the advantages of nuclear power plants

Key and difficult points:

1. Understand that this article uses a variety of argumentation methods to clarify the main purpose of the article.

2. Learn the argumentation method of combining arguments and refutations in this article, and the refutation methods of using facts to compare, refute arguments and refute arguments.

Teaching hours: two classes

Teaching steps:

The first class

1. Introduction

In Today, with the increasing development of science and technology, nuclear power can be said to be an ideal energy source being developed and utilized by many countries in the world. It is praised as Noah's Ark. However, there is a strong anti-nuclear power public opinion in Western countries, which regards them as the devil in the bottle. So, what should we think about nuclear power plants? For this reason, we are studying "Devil in a Bottle or Noah's Ark" today.

2. Problem Solving

The title of the article contains two completely opposite stories: the devil in the bottle and Noah’s Ark. These two stories are used to refer to two Opposing views, in this way, not only show the target of criticism, but also imply the author's point of view.

This paper is based on a large number of facts and expert opinions. After scientific analysis, it effectively refutes the fallacy and fully proves that nuclear power is by far the safest production in the world and has superiority in environmental protection. The central theme of geothermal energy.

3. Students retell the story: The Devil in the Bottle, Noah's Ark (understand the meaning)

4. Students read the text, and the teacher guides the students to outline the argumentative structure of the article. (Teacher answers after students discuss)

Clearly:

Introduction (1-2): Explain the background and explain two opposing viewpoints.

This thesis part: There are three subtitles. It demonstrates from three aspects: the design and structure of nuclear power plants, safety precautions, and the impact of radioactive materials released during production, and refutes two errors respectively. point of view. All three aspects are closely linked to the key issue of "security" for analysis, with clear organization and close internal connections.

Second Lesson

5. The combination of refutation and argumentation, and the comprehensive use of multiple argumentation methods are the writing characteristics of this article. In this regard, the analysis is as follows.

1. Question: What are the two opposing views put forward in the introduction?

Clearly: One view is to "oppose nuclear power plants", "see them as a scourge", and even liken them to "the devil released from the bottle"; the other view is to praise nuclear power plants as "a comprehensive The latest achievement of contemporary science and technology is the "Noah's Ark" that saves mankind from the disaster of "energy crisis".

2. Question: In the section "Specious accusations", what are the arguments and arguments of the other party presented by the author?

Clearly: The other party’s argument is that nuclear power plants are “controlled atomic bombs”

The other party’s argument is that nuclear power plants and atomic bombs use the same nuclear fuel and use the same principle to release fission energy are essentially the same.

3. Question: How does the author refute?

Clearly: The author lists three major differences in the opponent's argument: the concentration of nuclear fuel is different, the internal differences between the two are very large, and the shell strength of the two is very different. This is a rebuttal with facts. After that, the author used two natural paragraphs to conduct a comprehensive analysis on this point: Due to the three "highs" of the nuclear fuel of the atomic bomb, the fission reaction time is extremely short, and the outer shell is strong and cannot rupture and disintegrate in a short time, so the nuclear bomb can produce a huge explosion. force. Nuclear power plants are exactly the opposite. This is reasoning with facts. At this point, through comparative argumentation, the three major differences have refuted the other party's arguments, and the argument has lost its basis.

4. Question: In the section "How to evaluate safety", what are the other party's arguments and arguments?

Clearly: The other party’s argument is that nuclear power plants are unsafe (implied in the text)

The other party’s argument is that radioactive materials will leak out and endanger residents.

5. Question: How does the author refute?

Clearly: The author lists multiple barriers at nuclear power plants, strict measures for in-depth fortification, and the accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in the United States.

This very rigorously demonstrates the scientific reason why nuclear power plants are highly safe and refutes the other party's view. Then, the probability of death in accidents in other production activities and industrial facilities was compared with the probability of death in an accident at a nuclear power plant to strengthen the persuasiveness of the argument. In short, this section effectively refuted the opponent's arguments due to the comprehensive use of examples, quotations and comparative arguments.

6. Question: In the section "Is it dirty energy?", what are the other party's arguments and arguments?

Clear: The other side’s argument is that nuclear power is “dirty energy.”

The other side’s argument is that nuclear power plants will discharge radioactive materials and pollute the environment.

7. How does the author refute?

Clear: The author first makes a comparison through quantitative analysis, and the results show that: "The radioactive impact caused by nuclear power plants is negligible." Then, the author uses reductio ad absurdum to help the argument and make the argument more complete. The author then directly rebuts the argument by comparing radioactive pollution emitted by nuclear power plants to radioactive pollution emitted by coal power plants. At the end of the article, scientists' evaluations of nuclear power are quoted, allowing readers to establish a new understanding of the superiority of nuclear power.

6. Blackboard writing design

Opponent’s argument, opponent’s argument, refutation method, argument method used to refute

Specious accusations Nuclear power plants are “controlled atomic bombs” and nuclear fuel is uranium -235, uses nuclear fission reaction to release fission energy. Argument: Nuclear fuel concentration is different, the internal structure is very different, and the shell strength is very different. Examples

For comparison

How to evaluate the safety of nuclear power plants? Unsafe radioactive materials will leak out and endanger residents. There are multiple barriers and deep defenses. An example of the Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plant accident

For comparison

Citation

Is nuclear energy a dirty energy source that emits radioactive materials and pollutes the environment? Argument

Argument: The person is exposed to more natural radiation than artificial radiation. Radioactive exposure from nuclear power plants only accounts for a very small proportion of artificial radiation. Cite multiple examples of coal power plants that pollute the environment more seriously than nuclear power plants

For comparison

Citations

Reductio ad absurdum

7. Assign homework

Think and practice the second question (textbook page 62)