Critical Evaluation

The purpose in writing my critical evaluation examine is to do any analysis of a writers point of view. In addition, it is to do an evaluation of the sources message. That is, what is the thesis or key mentation the author was seek to get across. I will explore the writers arguments that were offered to prove the focal idea and a summary of the authors solutions for action. It is my hope, with the critical evaluation, that l, along with the readers of my essay, will discover whether the author go forthd appropriate evidential support and the effectiveness of it.I as well pop to provide some in the altogether insight and understanding to a offspring that is so strategic to our history. This designation allowed me to research a topic that is so important to our history. I was greatly intrigued that a group of atomic scientists who were responsible for creating such a meaner of destruction were exc practice sessionding to halt the use of the atomic run out against Japan. No t solely through the lam of my critical evaluation did I learn much more or less the events that led up to the give officeing of Japan, I developed an understanding of the struggles between science, politics, and moral obligation and consequences.Moreover, to believe that if this plea could commit been written in a different way, it could stir unnatural the course of history. The difficulties I encountered during this writing assignment were ensuring I estimated it in a tenacious manner, free from emotion due to the electric shock it had on our history. I attempted throughout the process, to perform research of the topic and make myself more knowledgeable of the events that led up to the beg and what took place after. I also had to ensure that while doing a critical evaluation off topic does non mean to be negative.But rather, it meaner being objective and well- informed. I enjoyed this assignment because it allowed me to revisit a topic in history that had such a huge impact. Although, I was aware of the author and who he was, I was not aware of the importance of this supplicant and how it could have changed the course of history. This assignment allowed me to evaluate an important part of history, pose and challenge questions about the topic, and see the long suits and weaknesses of a particular point of view.The article I chose is social lion Galliards Petition to the death chair. As I stated previously, I chose this essay because of its huge impact on history, the struggle teen moral obligation and politics, and how the history course of events could have been altered had this article been written differently. Furthermore, with this article, it was easy for me to see the use of ethos versus pathos 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 administration planned on victimization atomic go bads against Japa n, a group of scientists, many who had worked on the project, decided to protest. guide by Leo Sailor, a petition was written to the president or his fellow scientists to consider. It asked the chairman to rule that the United States shall not, in the present contour of the war, resort to the use of atomic bombs (Sailor, par. 1).Galliards arguments expressed in the petition lacked the bearing and persuasion needed to convince the President that the use of the atomic bomb against Japan was unjustifiable due to the lack of facts presented, the numerous fallacies found at bottom the writing, and the failure to express the free weight 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 first maltreat in this direction and there is almost no limit to the detrimental power which will become available in the course of this development. hence a nation which sets the precedent of using these newly liberated forces of genius for purposes of destruction may have to bear the responsibility of peeing the accession to an era of devastation on an unimaginable scale (Sailor, par. 5). Here, Sailor was onerous 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 utilize, inevitably, against another(prenominal) countries in the future. The authors overuse of pathos made his appeal less convince and failed to convince President Truman that the use of atomic bombs against Japan was unwarranted. If Sailor had ap pealed to the President with the use of ethos, it would have made a more successful petition and proved 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 ray of light 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 briny incentive 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 addressed. The petitioners occur use of pathos and pleas of emotion and moral obligation diverted the logical truth s 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 dramatic impact efficiency have changed the way history played out. If the scientists would have gone about the bombings in complete opposition 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.