What Argument is Frisch Making Historical Interpreations

Question 1 2.5 / 2.5 points What argument is Frisch making? This is the thesis statement. Question options: There was no way that detonation of an atomic bomb could have avoided large loss of life. The atomic bomb did not have as devastating impact on Nagasaki as it did on Hiroshima. Demonstration of the atomic bomb before deploying it might have put pressure on Japan to surrender with minimal loss of life. Scientists did not have the experience or the knowledge of particle physics to demonstrate the atomic bomb before actually using it. Question 2 2.5 / 2.5 points Why is Frisch making this argument? This is what is at stake for him. Question options: Frisch believes that the impact of the atomic bomb on Japan was not as environmentally bad as previously thought. Frisch believes that the Allies had the political and military means to have weighed other options to force unconditional surrender with Japan before using the atomic bomb. Frisch believes the bomb should have been used on Germany, not Japan. Frisch believes that the bomb was not ready for deployment, and if it had failed, war in Japan would have continued indefinitely. Question 3 2.5 / 2.5 points How does the historical context when Frisch published this article impact his thesis statement? Question options: Frisch states that he tried to avoid distortions of what was known about the atomic bomb when it was used in 1945 as to not take his analysis out of proper perspective or historical context. Frisch states that his views of the atomic bomb are substantiated by his beliefs that were influenced by his studies in college almost 20 years after World War II ended. Frisch states that writing about the historical significance of the atomic bomb is best explained by retrospectively acknowledging the mistakes that scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project made. Frisch states that the Allies had absolutely no other choice but to deploy the atomic bomb; therefore, there were no long-term effects almost two decades after World War II ended. Question 4 2.5 / 2.5 points What argument is Malloy making? This is the thesis statement. Question options: The physical effects of radiation exposure after an atomic bomb blast are overresearched. The short- and long-term effects of radiation exposure after an atomic bomb blast have been an underrepresented field of historical research. Symptoms from radiation poisoning are immediate, but quickly dissipate with a dose of antibiotics. The effects of radiation exposure were well documented prior to the detonation of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. Question 5 2.5 / 2.5 points Why is Malloy making this argument? This is what is at stake for him. Question options: Malloy contends that scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project were well aware of how nuclear energy could be harnessed for medical purposes. Malloy believes that the Pearl Harbor attacks, not the use of the atomic bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, were the root cause of the Cold War once World War II ended. Malloy states that since Harry Truman was not aware of the existence of the Manhattan Project prior to Franklin D. Roosevelt's death, he is not responsible for the impact of the bomb on Japanese civilians. Malloy argues that scientists and politicians having had ample prior knowledge of the impact of radiation exposure after an atomic blast could have prevented Cold War tensions with regard to the nuclear arms race. Question 6 2.5 / 2.5 points What kinds of sources does Malloy use to support this thesis? Question options: Articles published in scholarly journals like Britain and Atomic Energy An edited volume of the effects of nuclear weapons published in 1977 Research data about the use of atomic energy for military purposes in reports such as The Official Report on the Development of the Atomic Bomb Under the Auspices of the United States Government, 1940–1945 All of the above Question 7 2.5 / 2.5 points What argument are Reynolds and Lynch making? This is the thesis statement. Question options: The authors argue that the purpose of their research is to highlight the positive health effects the atomic bomb had on survivors in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The authors contend that the purpose of their research is to dispel the myth that the Manhattan Project's main objective was to force Japan to surrender to the Allies. The authors state that the purpose of their research is to demonstrate the environmental benefits that the atomic blast had on the flora and fauna in Japan. The authors argue that the purpose of their research is to present the results of a mixed-method study on the injuries that civilians sustained during the atomic blasts in Hiroshima. Question 8 2.5 / 2.5 points Why are Reynolds and Lynch making this argument? This is what is at stake for them. Question options: The authors believe that lack of substantial data on the injuries sustained in Hiroshima hinders full understanding of the impact of the atomic bomb. The authors believe that increased research on the military impact of the atomic bomb could present a solution to end the arms race between the United States and Soviet Union. The authors believe that the physical toll the atomic blast had on civilians in Hiroshima is overstated. The authors believe that the environmental impact that the atomic bomb had on Hiroshima has been underestimated. Question 9 2.5 / 2.5 points Which of the following is not data collected and analyzed by the authors of this study? Question options: Interviews from survivors in Hiroshima about their locations when the bomb was dropped Medical histories of atomic blast survivors Clinical reports of injured and uninjured survivors Governmental documents from the Meiji Restoration Question 10 2.5 / 2.5 points Which of the following statements best describes the historiographic comparisons between the Frisch, Malloy, and Reynolds and Lynch articles? Question options: All three articles have the same thesis statement that does not differ over the course of time when each was published. The authors' thesis statements differ based on the sources they used, the research methods they employed, and perspectives on the impact of the atomic bomb on survivors. Each of the articles are radically different, as the authors' biases impede upon their presentation of information about the impact of the atomic bomb on survivors. The articles do not have strong thesis statements, as the authors ground their findings based on their heritage and beliefs on the atomic bomb, not on source evidence.