Critical Evaluation

The purpose in writing my critical evaluation essay is to do any analysis of a writer's point of view. In addition, it is to do an evaluation of the author's message. That is, what is the thesis or key idea the author was trying to get across. I will explore the writer's arguments that were offered to prove the focal idea and a summary of the author's 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 provided appropriate evidential support and the effectiveness of it.I also pop to provide some new insight and understanding to a topic that is so important to our history. This assignment 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 pleading to halt the use of the atomic bomb against Japan. Not only through the course of my critical evaluation did I learn more about the events that led up to the bombing 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 have been written in a different way, it could have affected the course of history. The difficulties I encountered during this writing assignment were ensuring I evaluated it in a logical manner, free from emotion due to the impact 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 petition and what took place after. I also had to ensure that while doing a critical evaluation off topic does not 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 importa nce of this petition 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 strengths and weaknesses of a particular point of view.The article I chose is Leo Galliard's â€Å"Petition to the President†. 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 author's 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 using atomic bombs against Japan, a group of scientists, many who had worked on the project, decided to protest. Led by Leo Sailor, a petition was written to the president or his fellow scientists to consider. It asked the President â€Å"to rule that the United States shall not, in the present phase of the war, resort to the use of atomic bombs† (Sailor, par. 1).Galliard's arguments expressed in the petition lacked the strength 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 within the writing, and the failure to express the weight that their arguments held in the decision. In Leo Galliard's 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. Galliard's states: Atomic power will provide the nations with new meaner of destruction.The atomic bombs at our disposal represent only the first step in this direction and there is almost no limit to th e destructive power which will become available in the course of this development. Thus a nation which sets the precedent of using these newly liberated forces of nature for purposes of destruction may have to bear the responsibility of peeing 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 author's overuse of pathos made his appeal less convincing and 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 radiation poisoning. This is information that only the scientists knew and excluding it created a huge defect in their petition. A petition based on the scientist's logic and expertise would have proven far more effective. Excluding critical information that only the scientists knew should have been used as the main 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 petitioner's 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-sign ers 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 world's first nuclear catastrophe.The choice of words and main points could have been more powerful. A more dramatic impact might 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. â€Å"A Petition to the President of the United States. † Authenticator. Com. 2011. Web. 11 May 2012.