Argumentative writing about the atomic bomb puts students in unfamiliar territory. They are asked to take a position on one of the most debated events of the twentieth century, using a book that deliberately avoids taking a position itself. That mismatch is what makes the assignment worth doing, and what makes it tricky to grade.

Hersey does not tell readers what to conclude. He presents what six people experienced and leaves the moral weight to the reader. Students who write arguments from this text have to build their own reasoning from evidence rather than borrowing the author's.

That means many essays will lean on emotion. It is understandable, given the material, but it does not automatically make an argument. Your grading needs to reward students who connect their claims to what the text actually shows.

A clear set of criteria lets you honor strong feelings while still holding students to the standards of argument. Here is how to approach it.

Grade the Reasoning, Not the Position

The most important rule is that no stance earns a higher grade than another. A student arguing that the bombing was justified and a student arguing it was not should be scored on the same criteria. Make this explicit in the assignment so students feel free to write what they actually think.

• Is the claim specific enough to be argued, rather than a general statement of sadness or approval?
• Does each reason connect directly to a claim, with no leaps?
• Is evidence drawn from the text, and is it interpreted rather than just dropped in?
• Does the essay acknowledge at least one opposing view and respond to it?
• Does the conclusion follow logically from what came before?

Watch for the Limits of the Source

Hiroshima tells the human story of the bombing, but it does not address the strategic decision-making behind it. Students who try to argue about military necessity using only Hersey are asking the book to do something it was not built to do. A good comment points this out and suggests bringing in additional sources.

This is a real skill worth grading: knowing what a source can and cannot support. Students who recognize the boundaries of their evidence write more careful arguments. Reward that awareness when you see it.

Give Feedback That Improves the Next Draft

Rather than marking every weak sentence, identify the one structural issue that would improve the essay most. Often it is a missing counterargument or a claim that outruns the evidence. One well-chosen comment tends to produce more revision than a page of margin notes.

AI feedback tools can help you spot these patterns across a large set of essays. They can flag missing counterarguments or unsupported claims so you can concentrate your attention on the papers that need a human conversation. The final call on how a student handled a sensitive topic still belongs to you.

Keep the Classroom Tone in Mind

Students may have family connections to World War II, to Japan, or to nuclear history. Feedback should stay focused on the writing and never signal approval or disapproval of a conclusion. Neutral, specific comments protect both the student and the integrity of the assignment.

When feedback is consistent and transparent, students trust the process even when they disagree with a score. That trust is worth building, especially on a topic where emotions run high.