History course work

Name of student

Name of tutor

Course

Name of institution

Date

History course work

The two accounts that are included in this case have the authors apply inflammatory language. The first article has the first sentence worded in very inflammatory language. The author refers to the cases as being “highly publicized”, and goes on to anticommunism as “growing hysteria”. There is bias and prejudice in the manner in which this author portrays communists. The portrayal of Hiss by the first account is biased. The author seems to be biased against Hiss. He argues that: Hiss “vehemently denied”. Since the author didn’t have the facts whether Hiss really committed the offence, it is prejudiced of him to claim that Hiss vehemently denied the charges.

Inflammatory is used by the second author on his reference to “most famous disclosure”. It is not clear which facts this author used to label this disclosure as the famous of all. The author is also biased against Chambers. He first refers to him as a “repentant communist”. He portrays Hiss as a saint. He uses the word “prominent’ to describe the position that Hiss was holding in the government. Contradictory data is evident in the claims of Chambers as portrayed by the second author. Chambers claims that Hiss was a spy with the Soviet Union, yet he leads the investigators in his pumpkin farm rather than to a farm of Hiss. The argument of the second author on the statute of limitations is also contradictory. He argues that these statutes of limitation could not allow putting Hiss to charge. However, the same author reports that Hiss was convicted for a five year term. Again, it is contradictory that Chambers is claiming that Hiss passed the materials to him, yet he claims that His passed the information to the Soviet mercenaries.