Write a two-paragraph (more or less) analysis of the two passages below. They a

Write a two-paragraph (more or less) analysis of the two passages below. They are both on the same topic, but have widely different approaches. Contrast the differences in angle of vision (stance) in these two passages by analyzing how they create their different rhetorical effects. Consider factors such as overt statements of meaning, selection/omission of details, connotations of words and figures of speech, and sentence emphasis. Be specific in citing/mentioning which words, phrases, facts, etc. you show as examples. Your goal here is to explain how these two passages attempt to influence the reader’s opinion by creating different impressions of nuclear power. If there are any words in these articles that are unfamiliar to you, look them up! There is no word count requirement.
PASSAGE 1 – from a report by a federal commission chaired by former Vice President Dick Cheney.
Nuclear power plants serve millions of American homes and businesses, have a dependable record for safety and efficiency, and discharge no greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. As noted earlier, these facilities currently generate 20 percent of all electricity in America, and more than 40 per cent of electricity generated I 10 states in the Northeast, South, and Midwest. Other nations, such as Japan and France, generate a much higher percentage of their electricity from nuclear power. Yet the number of nuclear plants in America is actually projected to decline in coming years, as old plants close and none are built to replace them. [We must] provide for the safe expansion of nuclear energy by establishing a national repository for nuclear waste, and by streamlining licensing of nuclear power plants.
PASSAGE 2 – Commentary on the above report by editorial writer Marianne Means
Vice President Dick Cheney, head of the presidential task force studying our energy needs, favors building new nuclear power plants – and he’s oddly casual about it.
The industry has been moribund in this country since the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island more than two decades ago set off fierce emotional resistance to an unreliable technology capable of accidentally spreading deadly radiation. No new plants have been ordered since then. Only 20 percent of our electricity is generated by nuclear power.
But President Bush has instructed Cheney to look into the prospect of resurrecting and developing nuclear power as a major part of a broad new energy policy. Cheney argues that modern, improved reactors operate safely, economically, and efficiently. “It’s one of the safest industries around,” he says unequivocally.
There remains, however, a little problem of how to dispose of the plants’ radioactive waste. Cheney concedes that issue is still unresolved. “If we’re going to go forward with nuclear power, we need to find a way to resolve it,” he said Sunday in an NBC “Meet the Press” interview.
No state wants to be the repository of the more than 40,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste currently accumulating at 103 commercial reactor sites around the country. This spent fuel is so deadly it can remain a potential threat to public health and safety for thousands of years. A leak could silently contaminate many miles of groundwater that millions of people depend on.