Leo Szilard Petition Analysis
Critical Evaluation of the Petition Leo Szilard along with other scientists wrote a petition to the President of the United States. This petition addressed the concern of using nuclear weapons against the Japanese, for fear of future usage of nuclear weapons in war (Szilard). Although he was a brilliant nuclear physicist, his petition was based on his understanding of nuclear physics, the petition showed a great concern for humanity, however, it lacked the essential elements of an effective argument and was plagued with logical fallacies. Leo Szilard had a fundamental understanding of physics. He was well known and respected by Albert Einstein, who helped him obtain a U.S. Visa to enter the United States (Frank 222). He worked on the Manhattan Project during WWII as a scientist and helped construct the atomic bombs (Szilard). During his time working on the Manhattan project Szilard, had moral objections to the development and research of nuclear weapons, due to the destructive power of nuclear weapons (Frank 227). Although he was an expert
…show more content…
One can find this in Szilard's use of powerful emotional words that pander the morality of the reader. "Atomic bombs are primarily a means for the ruthless annihilation of cities" (Szilard), this quote from Szilard demonstrated his use of pathos to sway the reader emotionally. He continues on in his letter with much of the same tone. " Our use of atomic bombs in this war would carry the world a long way further on this path of ruthlessness" (Szilard), here you can see a logical fallacy and again one can see the use of emotionally charged language without any hard empirical evidence against the use of nuclear weapons. Although he drew to the emotion of the reader, he failed to provide empirical evidence, logos, which would have supported his argument on the use of the atomic bomb and his petition would have possibly made it to the
One can find this in Szilard's use of powerful emotional words that pander the morality of the reader. "Atomic bombs are primarily a means for the ruthless annihilation of cities" (Szilard), this quote from Szilard demonstrated his use of pathos to sway the reader emotionally. He continues on in his letter with much of the same tone. " Our use of atomic bombs in this war would carry the world a long way further on this path of ruthlessness" (Szilard), here you can see a logical fallacy and again one can see the use of emotionally charged language without any hard empirical evidence against the use of nuclear weapons. Although he drew to the emotion of the reader, he failed to provide empirical evidence, logos, which would have supported his argument on the use of the atomic bomb and his petition would have possibly made it to the