Ethos, pathos and nuclear energy Something curious and provocative always happens in scientific writing. Gwyneth Cravens is the author of five novels and many publications and studies a topic in great detail. He has created a huge body of work on nuclear energy over the last decade. Cravens' research in her latest published book titled Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy led her to do an about-face on the issue. In his article “Better Energy”, published in May 2008 in Discover magazine, he disputes and states that nuclear energy is currently the best alternative and should be considered as our future energy source. At the beginning of "Better Energy" it begins by introducing James Lovelock, who has been highly honored in the green movement for creating the Gaia hypothesis, which combines everything on earth as entirely organic. In the past, Lovelock opposed nuclear energy. Unfortunately, for his fans, he changed his mind and started supporting nuclear energy. Throughout the article Cravens goes on to explain how the use of nuclear energy will be able to mitigate the problem of global warming. Current fossil fuel power plants cause serious health problems for thousands of Americans and continue to cause warming. He tries to demonstrate to the public that there is currently no possibility that the nation of the United States can use any of the renewable energy sources such as wind and sun (in which he tries to find commonalities with public opinions on this case), and that nuclear energy is safe, and this is the best option for obtaining the necessary amount of energy needed. To make her case she focuses heavily on building her ethics or credibility as a writer. Through his impressive use of ethics, he gives the reliability...... at the heart of the paper ......to persuade his audience through his strong hypotheses and evidence from his research work. However, Cravens may have some weaknesses in his argument by not providing substantial information about his opponent's position. Perhaps this could be considered a smart point because otherwise it could completely weaken his case for attracting his public stance on nuclear energy. He tries to demonstrate to the public that there is currently no possibility that the nation of the United States can use any of the renewable energy sources such as wind and sun, and that nuclear energy is only a safe one, and that is the option best to obtain the necessary resources. amount of energy needed. Well, let's hope the tide turns sooner or later and it's probably time to look for realistic alternatives. Works cited …………