Question

the real issue is that the use of nuclear power and nuclear weapons is forcing humankind, and indeed the whole ecosystem, to participate in a particularly cruel and totally uncontrolled experiment. given the scientific evidence that there is no safe dose of radiation, this is an experiment that has already gone awry. . . . the real question is whether we, as a human race, can afford in good conscience to risk annihilation with our continued reliance on nuclear technology. can we continue to despoil our environment with long - lived radioactive materials that are scattered to the wind and embedded in our precious soil, randomly exposing large populations, and foisting health impacts on unsuspecting future generations who have no choice in this matter? we may choose to do so. but if we do, i am quite sure that our children and grandchildren will roundly condemn us for our lack of foresight and our selfishness. as they struggle to deal with a noisome environment. which fallacies appear in the argument? check all that apply. i appeal to emotion because the passage describes the potential impact on children bandwagon because the author states that everyone agrees on this issue ad hominem because the author questions the honesty of scientists false dilemma because it states that we must end the use of nuclear energy or die appeal to emotion because it describes possible catastrophe

Explanation:

The passage describes potential impact on children and possible catastrophe, which are emotional - laden descriptions, so there is an appeal to emotion. There is no mention of everyone agreeing (bandwagon), no attack on scientists' honesty (ad hominem), and no false - dilemma presented as described.

Answer:

appeal to emotion because the passage describes the potential impact on children
appeal to emotion because it describes possible catastrophe