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