Reading Assessment: Selections from Cradle to Cradle

EAPP 8330: Critical Reading and Debate

Name: Minho Cho

Directions: Skim the Introduction of the book Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make
Things (McDonough & Braungart, 2002) in order to answer the questions below.

A. Determining the Authors Purpose (1 point each)

1. What problem are the authors identifying?
The authors argue that the existing industrial designrepresented by the Cradle-to-
Grave (C2G) model and the One Size Fits All modelis neither economically
efficient nor environmentally sustainable. Instead, the authors suggest an introduction of
the Cradle-to-Cradle (C2C) model as a new approach, through which all products can
be permanently upcycled with no environmental damage.

2. What are the complexities of this issue?

The problem is that a switch from the C2G model to the C2C model is not that easy in
practice, in that the change requires a radical reform in industry as well as fundamental
change in customers overall lifestyle. Since the C2G model is deeply rooted in the
existing industry, the costs for the radical change will be massive for manufacturers.
Moreover, customers will have to get accustomed to this type of notion, fundamentally
changing their views on products, environmental perspectives, and even their lifestyle.
All of these aspects might be an obstacle to the introduction of the new paradigm.

3. For whom is this topic important and why?

On the face of it, this topic might seem to be an issue related only to the industry because
it addresses the mode of manufacturing. Indeed, businessmen will be the key stakeholders
directly affected by the reform. However, all humans on earth will have to be seen as
stakeholders because the topic is a matter of how to manufacture and reuse products we
humans need in everyday life. In addition, this issue is important to all humans in the
sense that it is about protecting the environment (macro-wise) and protecting our health
(micro-wise).

B. Interpreting the Evidence (2 points each)

Please answer each of the following questions in 2 3 complete sentences. For each question,
you must include specific evidence from the reading to support your answer.

1. Read paragraphs 1 2 to answer the following questions. Do the authors support the
cradle-to-grave model? Why or why not?
The authors do not support the C2G model because it is inherently designed to damage
the environment and human health by generating noxious materials. In the text, the
authors explain that a chair in the room, taken as an example, contains mutagenic
materials, heavy metals, and dangerous chemicals.

1
 2. Read paragraphs 3 5 to answer the following questions. According to the authors, is the
International Style a positive or negative product design? What reasons do they give to
support their claim?
The authors view the International Style as a negative product design. First, as the author
points out, the computer in the room contains noxious materials that are not essential to
the functioning, because it is designed to work under any circumstances. Second, since it
is a mass-produced item, the computer should be thrown away when the child outgrows it,
which will be detrimental to both the economy and the environment.

C. Outlining the Argument Structure (6 points total)

Complete the argument outline for the sections From Cradle to Grave and One Size Fits
All. The main claim/thesis is listed below. Please add specific warrants/reasons and evidence
from the text that support the main claim. A completed outline will include two reasons and 2
3 pieces of evidence for each reason. The second reason has been done for you.

Main Claim / Thesis: Cradle-to-grave designs and one-size-fits-all solutions are problematic

Reason 1: because Cradle-to-Grave designs waste resources that have recyclable value.

Evidence: according to some accounts, more than 90 percent of materials extracted to

make durable goods in the U.S. become waste almost immediately.

Evidence: many products are designed to last only for a certain period of time in order to
encourage the customer to buy a new model.

Evidence: products contain on average only 5 percent of the raw materials involved in the
process of making and delivering them.

Reason 2: because one size fits all solutions assume that needs are the same everywhere.

Evidence: in the field of architecture, buildings based on this approach rarely reflect the
distinctness or style of a region. In general, they do not match the surrounding landscape
and do not have high aesthetic value.

Evidence: in the field of manufacturing, mass-produced items are detrimental to the

environment because they are designed to function under any conditions. For instance,
mass-produced detergent contains more chemicals to effectively remove dirt and kill
germs in all parts of the world, which means more damage to the environment.

Directions: Read the section A Strategy of Tragedy, or a Strategy of Change (pp. 42 44) to
answer the questions below. For each question, circle (or highlight) the best answer to the
question.

2
D. Making Inferences (1 point each)

1. The authors attitude toward industrialists, engineers, designers, and developers (p. 43)
can best be described as:

a. resentful
b. empathetic
c. optimistic
d. critical
e. cheerful

2. The passage (pp. 42 44) is most likely intended to

a. describe the main problems of industrial infrastructure.

b. provide a definition of intergenerational remote tyranny.
c. place blame on designers for the problems we face today.
d. motivate people to change unintelligent design problems.
e. explain a strategy that can be used to implement change.

3. The final paragraph on page 44 is most likely intended to

a. ask the readers a question.

b. introduce new terminology.
c. present the subsequent topics.
d. define important movements.
e. describe a possible solution.

E. Analyzing the Argument (4 points total)

Please answer the following question in a well-structured paragraph. You must include specific
evidence from the reading to support your answer.

1. Is the reasoning and evidence convincing? Why or why not? (Consider: How do the
authors acknowledge the complexities of the issue? Do the authors include a
counterargument (concession + refutation)? What is the tone of the counterargument? Do
the authors rely on logos, pathos, or ethos to persuade their readers? Have the authors
chosen the correct approach(es) for the intended audience? Is the evidence credible and
sufficient given the audience and the context of the argument?)

On the whole, the authors points are quite convincing because the article follows a very
logical flow. The article (Chapter 1) begins with a brief history of the Industrial
Revolution and its essences existing in todays industries. For most of the readers who
are not familiar with the industrial structure, it can be a good reader-friendly approach.
The authors also used various kinds of evidence to effectively persuade the audience. For

3
example, logos (e.g., specific data in the 2nd paragraph on p.27), pathos (e.g., an
imaginary story on p.3), ethos (e.g., establishing the authors credibility in the 3rd
paragraph on p.38) were effectively used in a well-balanced way. In addition, the authors
included counterarguments as needed (e.g., 3rd paragraph on p.40) to emphasize their
point. All of these skills make the article more convincing and compelling.

In terms of the credibility of evidence, however, one thing to point out is that some data
do not present specific sources. As seen in the 2rd paragraph on p.27 (more than 90
percent...) and the 1st paragraph on p.28 (only 5 percent...), it is better to specify data
sources when we offer specific numbers as evidence. Some readersif he/she values the
rigorousness of the researchmight question the overall credibility of this article bacause
of this point.