Critical Evaluation

The purpose in writing my faultfinding military rank raise is to do any analysis of a writers point of view. In addition, it is to do an evaluation of the references message. That is, what is the thesis or discover bringing close together the actor was arduous to get across. I pull up stakes explore the writers arguments that were offered to prove the central idea and a summary of the authors solutions for action. It is my hope, with the vital evaluation, that l, along with the readers of my essay, will discover whether the author provided appropriate evidential support and the lastingness of it.I also pop to provide around new insight and understanding to a government issue that is so important to our history. This date allowed me to research a topic that is so important to our history. I was greatly intrigued that a group of nuclear scientists who were responsible for creating much(prenominal) a con noneer of destruction were acknowledgmentding to check-out pro cedure the determination of the nuclear misfire against Japan. not except through the origin of my critical evaluation did I learn to a greater extent about the events that led up to the barrage of Japan, I developed an understanding of the struggles surrounded by science, politics, and moral promise and consequences.Moreover, to believe that if this plea could check been written in a different focal point, it could catch light uponed the line of history. The difficulties I encountered during this writing assignment were ensuring I evaluated it in a logical manner, take over from emotion due to the impact it had on our history. I attempted throughout the process, to do research of the topic and make myself to a greater extent knowledgeable of the events that led up to the prayer and what took place after. I also had to ascertain that while doing a critical evaluation off topic does not mean to be negative.But rather, it meaner being objective and well- informed. I e njoyed this assignment beca example it allowed me to revisit a topic in history that had such a abundant impact. Although, I was informed of the author and who he was, I was not aware of the importance of this bespeak and how it could live changed the track down of history. This assignment allowed me to evaluate an important while of history, pose and challenge questions about the topic, and cipher the strengths and weaknesses of a particular point of view.The hold I chose is social lion Galliards pray to the chairperson. As I stated previously, I chose this essay beca economic consumption of its huge impact on history, the struggle teen moral obligation and politics, and how the history course of events could have been modify had this article been written differently. Further more(prenominal), with this article, it was easy for me to line up the use of ethos versus poignancy and the implications of the authors writing style.Michael Martinez professor Shields ENGLE 102 Effectiveness in Writing 24 may 2013 In 1945, when it became public that the Truman organization planned on using atomic bombs against Japan, a group of scientists, many who had worked on the project, decided to protest. Led by Leo Sailor, a appeal was written to the president or his fellow scientists to consider. It asked the President to predominate that the United States shall not, in the present human body of the war, resort to the use of atomic bombs (Sailor, par. 1).Galliards arguments explicit in the petition lacked the strength and idea needed to convince the President that the use of the atomic bomb against Japan was baseless due to the lack of facts presented, the numerous fallacies tack together within the writing, and the failure to impart the tip that their arguments held in the decision. In Leo Galliards petition to the President, the author repeatedly utilizes the appeal f pathos, expressing the ideas in a way that invokes emotion and feelings from the audience, particularly the president. Galliards states Atomic power will provide the nations with new meaner of destruction.The atomic bombs at our disposal represent only the outset step in this direction and in that location is almost no limit to the harmful power which will become easy in the course of this development. Thus a nation which sets the precedent of using these impertinently liberated forces of nature for purposes of destruction may have to bear the state of egest the door to an era of devastation on an unimaginable scale (Sailor, par. 5). Here, Sailor was trying to describe to the President that the results of using the atomic bomb would not only affect Japan, but ultimately the United States.Not only would the United States have to bear responsibility of having unleashed this atomic power, she would feel the effects of it when it would be used, inevitably, against other countries in the future. The authors overuse of pathos made his appeal less convince an d failed to convince President Truman that the use of atomic bombs against Japan was unwarranted. If Sailor had appealed to the President with the use of ethos, it would have made a more successful petition and proven his credibility as an expert.The lack of facts presented and the failure to express the weight that their arguments held weakened their petition. For example, as creators of the atomic bomb, they were aware of the specific catastrophic effects, including irradiation poisoning. This is information that only the scientists knew and excluding it created a huge defect in their petition. A petition based on the scientists logic and expertise would have proven far more effective. Excluding critical information that only the scientists knew should have been used as the main inducing to persuade the President.Not addressing the fact that it was them who created the atomic bomb and they knew of its enormous destruction capabilities, was a key point that should have been add ressed. The petitioners recurring use of pathos and pleas of emotion and moral obligation diverted the logical truths of their arguments. A factual representation of the have ultimately changed the course of history. Leo Sailor and his fellow co-signers did not prevent the bombings of Hiroshima ND Nagasaki, thus, proving that the arguments of the scientists failed to hold the strength needed to prevent the worlds first nuclear catastrophe.The choice of words and main points could have been more powerful. A more melodramatic impact might have changed the way history played out. If the scientists would have foregone about the bombings in complete antonym rather than attempting to dictate policy, they might have been successful. Works Cited Sailor, Leo and Cosigners. A Petition to the President of the United States. Authenticator. Com. 2011. Web. 11 May 2012.