| Argument & Critical Thinking: |
| Assignment 1: Hiroshima |
| Student: Paul Priz |
Date: 28 March 2011
Contents
Introduction. 3
Atomic Bomb fall out: Facts v Interpretation. 3
Conclusion. 5
Since 1945, there have been numerous arguments regarding whether the atomic bomb should have been dropped on Hiroshima. This report looks at two such arguments; that of John Connor, who argues for the attack and Gar Alperovitz, who argues that other alternatives were available. Despite the fact that both sides are worthy of consideration, this analysis will show that neither argument justifies readers accepting them.
Connor makes a hasty generalisation about the civilian population’s reaction to the American invasion, basing the whole population’s reaction on two work colleague’s interpretation of events. There are many other possible reactions by the civilian population who had been under pressure for a long time and near starvation, they may have been happy for the Americans to come and the fighting to stop.
Connor cites that potential critics have argued that America should have dropped a demonstration bomb. This is a strawman fallacy; we have no way of identifying who these critics are or identifying the strength of their arguments making any conclusion unsound.
Alperovitz takes a different approach citing diaries and personal opinions. Mr Truman’s diary insert are used to back up the argument that if the Americans had assured the Japanese that the emperor would not have been removed they would have surrendered.
Mr Truman’s diary is also used to back up the idea that the Russian involvement could have finished the war and this would have made the Japanese surrender.
These are both slippery slope fallacies that assume Alperovitz version of events would have happened if the emperor had been removed. There is no proof to back up this claim politicians say many things that turn out not to be correct (Julia Gillard, No carbon tax). The argument is invalid because the premises are true but the conclusion is speculation.
Comparison
Connor’s argument includes an appeal to fear, hasty generalisation and strawman fallacy. This makes any potential conclusion that he reaches unsound.
Alperovitz’s argument includes many slippery slope fallacies based on facts but using interpretations of the outcomes that are speculation. This makes the view that he proposes unsound.
Connor uses some arguments but adds a strawman fallacy to enhance his conclusion, where Alperovitz just uses arguments to build his conclusion. Connors use of the irrefutable but uncheckable and not necessarily correct assumptions and strawman fallacy compared to Alperovitz refutable evidence makes Alperovitz’s style of argument stronger.
Both arguments have more flaws than have been indicated, but over all Connor has a much stronger position as his argument is backed up by what actually happened. Because Alperovitz is trying to argue for different outcome than history records he has a more difficult position to justify. His whole argument is based on a slippery slope fallacy.
The authors both use some premises that are supported by documented historical events that can be checked, but both use fallacious, at many levels, ways to present their points of view and therefore knowledge cannot be gained or implied from this style of arguing.
