Final answer:
Gandhi's argument was strong and grounded in non-violent civil disobedience, but it failed to persuade the Viceroy due to the geopolitical context of World War II and British imperial interests.
Step-by-step explanation:
Evaluating the strength of Gandhi's argument, one can say that it is grounded in the principles of non-violent civil disobedience and the moral duty to oppose oppressive rule, which he articulated with clarity and conviction. Gandhi's claims are that British colonial rule is detrimental to India and that the Indian people are entitled to self-governance. His reasons include the political exploitation and economic deprivation experienced under colonialism.
The evidence he provides is based on the observable impoverishment of the Indian masses and the denial of their basic freedoms. While many would find his letter persuasive due to his logical structuring and moral appeal, it did not succeed in convincing the Viceroy because of the latter's political interests and the geopolitical context of World War II necessitating control over India.
The reason Gandhi's argument failed to persuade the Viceroy is likely due to the fact that the immediate impact was heavily overshadowed by the political consequences of concession to such demands. Additionally, the Viceroy's non-response can be considered a strategic move to maintain the status quo during a period of global instability when the rise of totalitarianism threatened British imperial interests. Gandhi's appeals, despite being deeply rooted in his duty to his people and the just pursuit of independence, could not outweigh the British government's agenda for maintaining its empire.