Analyzing the argumentative article “Let's be clear, you cannot survive a nuclear war” The debate on whether or not humans can survive a nuclear war is a interesting topic. The article “Let's be clear. You can't survive a nuclear war,” is written by James E. Doyle and Ira Helfand. The article was published on Newsweek.com on August 20, 2015. This article was written to challenge the claim that people can survive a nuclear war. The authors hope the public will act together to prevent nuclear wars. An unfamiliar audience, or an audience slightly opposed to one's own views, is the type of audience for which Doyle and Helfand are writing this article. The main claim of this article is that the devastating use of logic and motivational evidence is also successful in this argumentative article. The authors use the aftermath of a nuclear war in Dallas to strengthen their argument. Consequences ranged from failed healthcare, to uninhabitable land, to lack of trust in government leading to further destruction (Doyle and Helfand). Using the examples of Dallas the authors are able to state that it would be impossible to prepare for these events (Doyle and Helfand). These consequences are acceptable examples of logical and motivational evidence. Authors take advantage of the human need to stay safe by writing consequences that could virtually annihilate us. The authors continue to maintain that after just a few bombs, 2 billion people would run the risk of dying of starvation. The authors support this claim with a report that was “published in 2013 by the Nobel Prize-winning International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and its US affiliate Physicians for Social Responsibility” (Doyle and Helfand). This is a successful logical and motivational proof that encourages the public to have a greater awareness of the ultimate dangers of nuclear war and to begin taking measures to prevent them. Another great example of the use of logic is how the authors argue that even using all the money in the US defense budget to build a nuclear global health workforce would be pointless (Doyle and Helfand). The authors support this claim by stating a source called “Medical implications of nuclear power