Hi
Sajjad1994 ..
Requesting for evaluation of my essay, based on the undermentioned AWA prompt :-
QUESTION“Any political organization that advocates the use of violence to achieve its goal should be prohibited from operating within our nation. Such groups are detrimental to the society since violent, short term solutions can lead to more serious long term problems”
ESSAYThe argument under reference, possibly an extract of an Editorial published in a newspaper, highlights a strong recommendation to ban any political organization, which espouses the use of violence to achieve its enunciated goals, on the basis of sole emphasis on its adoption of violent, short-term solutions. While the flow of the argument may sound convincing in the initial glance, a detailed analysis of the argument's constituents reveals certain critical flaws affecting the logical soundness of the argument. There are certain glaring deficiencies pertaining to suitable evidence and examples, while justifying the premise regarding adoption of short-term solutions as always detrimental to the society.
Firstly, the argument provides only a single supporting evidence to support the total ban on such a political organization. Recommendation of short-term solutions as detrimental to the society on the back of sole criterion is inadequate to prove the logical soundness of the argument. Additional evidence in the form of suitable historical or contemporary examples is required to strengthen the logical soundness of the argument.
Secondly, there has been an inadequate analysis of the nature of opposing ideals, as existing in the society, which inhibit the achievement of the goals of the political organization. It is highly probable that the opposing forces resort to violent tactics on their part as well. In such a situation, adoption of violent, short-term solutions may prove to be essential towards achievement of goals which may prove beneficial to the society once the opposing ideals have been effectively dealt with through short-term violent means.
Thirdly, the argument fails to consider the fact that the adoption of violent, short-term solutions may prove as the enabling criterion to bring about the desired, long-term changes for the benefit of the society members. On its part, the argument has not provided enough supporting evidence to prove that violent, short term solutions, in turn, always prove detrimental to the society.
Towards improving the logical soundness of the argument, the author may provide suitable proof in terms of historical precedents to highlight the demerits of the violent, short-term solutions vis-a-vis peaceful, long-term solutions. Evidence in the form of any such existing organizations will also considerably strengthen the arguments.
In essence, the argument suffers from critical deficiencies towards its logical soundness. A thorough analysis of the constituents of the political organization, as well as the nature of the opposing ideals preventing achievement of its goals will improve the logical consistency of the argument. The argument. in its existing state, seems void to effectively justify the author's strong recommendation of banning such a political organization in the nation.