GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 11 Dec 2018, 05:36

# R1 Decisions:

HBS Chat - Decisions will be released at Noon ET  |  UVA Darden Chat  |  YouTube Live with Cornell Johnson @11am ET

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

## Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in December
PrevNext
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
2526272829301
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
303112345
Open Detailed Calendar
• ### Free GMAT Prep Hour

December 11, 2018

December 11, 2018

09:00 PM EST

10:00 PM EST

Strategies and techniques for approaching featured GMAT topics. December 11 at 9 PM EST.
• ### The winning strategy for 700+ on the GMAT

December 13, 2018

December 13, 2018

08:00 AM PST

09:00 AM PST

What people who reach the high 700's do differently? We're going to share insights, tips and strategies from data we collected on over 50,000 students who used examPAL.

# AWA evalute

Author Message
Intern
Status: NOT READY TO GIVE UP
Joined: 24 Apr 2013
Posts: 23
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
GMAT Date: 10-30-2013
WE: Engineering (Other)

### Show Tags

28 Jul 2014, 09:29
4
Without New ideas, any society will stagnate. New Ideas can only be introduced in a society that permits freedom of expression. Therefore, if a society is to thrive, all limits on freedom of expression should be eliminated.”

The argument states that the limits on freedom of expression should be eliminated so as to keep the society thriving and prevent it from stagnating. The conclusion of the argument relies on several assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is weak and unconvincing.
Firstly, The argument readily assumes that new ideas cannot thrive in a society that do not censor the expression. The statement is a stretch. In order, to maintain law and order, to preserve the essence of its cultural heritage and to maintain sovereignty, censorship is necessary. A state should never allow the preaching which may violate with the national peace and may pose danger to the integrity of the society within. New ideas can still be regunavated while imposing a control over expression. The argument could be strengthen, if the "Only" condition imposed in the argument might be avoided.
Secondly, the argument states to remove all limits from the freedom of expression, without taking into account the other side of the coin into account. Removing all limits from the expression may lead to chaos and might deter the societal values to ashes. Therefore, in order to keep a society running and to protect it from falling into the evil wills of the pertaining bad characters in the society a limit/censorship over the expression is needed. But, the censorship should not restrict the new ideas from coming up, but should ponder over the effects of those ideas first .

In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and therefore, unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if author have taken into account all the relevant facts. In order, to access the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all the contributing factors. In this particular case, the argument remains unsubstantial and open to debate.
Intern
Status: NOT READY TO GIVE UP
Joined: 24 Apr 2013
Posts: 23
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
GMAT Date: 10-30-2013
WE: Engineering (Other)

### Show Tags

28 Jul 2014, 09:31
6
“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”

The argument states that any political organization that advocates violence to achieve its goal should be prohibited from operating in our nation, since they are deterimental to the society. The argument reveals examples of leap of faith, poor reasoning and fails to mention several factors on the basis of which it could further be evaluated. The conclusion relies on several assumptions for which no clear evidence is there. Hence, the argument is weak and unconvincing. Firstly, the argument assumes that violence can never lead to long term solutions and shall always lead to the short tern solutions. However, the argument fails to consider the situations where oppression prevails to great heights. In a dictatorship, one's peaceful protest and non-violent ways might get supressed by the mighty rulers/ones in power. Therefore, sometimes, it becomess necessary to use violence, which might lead to better and long term solutions. For example, French Revolution, where change of state was only be possible and was achieved with the usage of power. Second, the argument assumes that any group that uses violence is detrimental to the society. This again is a very weak and unsupported claim. To illustrate, actions of the revolutionaries in Indian freedom struggle like Bhagat singh, Lala Lajpat Rai, Subahs Chandra Bose etc resulted in the integration of much separated indian society. If the argument have provided the context, in which the argument is presented, it would have been more strengthened. Lastly, mere prohibiting/banning a group on the grounds that it preaches violence is supression of the freedom of expression, which our constitution grants to each and every citizen of the contry. Hence, prohibiting a group is unconstitutional and against human rights. In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and therefore is unconvining. It could be considerably strengthened if the author have clearly mentioned, all the relevant facts and context, in which the argument is presented. In order to access the merits of a decision/conlusion/argument it is essential to have full knowledge of all the relevant facts. In this particular case, without this particular information the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
Manager
Joined: 20 Apr 2018
Posts: 175
Concentration: Technology, Nonprofit
WE: Analyst (Non-Profit and Government)

### Show Tags

26 Jul 2018, 10:13
himang wrote:
“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”

The argument states that any political organization that advocates violence to achieve its goal should be prohibited from operating in our nation, since they are deterimental to the society. The argument reveals examples of leap of faith, poor reasoning and fails to mention several factors on the basis of which it could further be evaluated. The conclusion relies on several assumptions for which no clear evidence is there. Hence, the argument is weak and unconvincing. Firstly, the argument assumes that violence can never lead to long term solutions and shall always lead to the short tern solutions. However, the argument fails to consider the situations where oppression prevails to great heights. In a dictatorship, one's peaceful protest and non-violent ways might get supressed by the mighty rulers/ones in power. Therefore, sometimes, it becomess necessary to use violence, which might lead to better and long term solutions. For example, French Revolution, where change of state was only be possible and was achieved with the usage of power. Second, the argument assumes that any group that uses violence is detrimental to the society. This again is a very weak and unsupported claim. To illustrate, actions of the revolutionaries in Indian freedom struggle like Bhagat singh, Lala Lajpat Rai, Subahs Chandra Bose etc resulted in the integration of much separated indian society. If the argument have provided the context, in which the argument is presented, it would have been more strengthened. Lastly, mere prohibiting/banning a group on the grounds that it preaches violence is supression of the freedom of expression, which our constitution grants to each and every citizen of the contry. Hence, prohibiting a group is unconstitutional and against human rights. In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above mentioned reasons and therefore is unconvining. It could be considerably strengthened if the author have clearly mentioned, all the relevant facts and context, in which the argument is presented. In order to access the merits of a decision/conlusion/argument it is essential to have full knowledge of all the relevant facts. In this particular case, without this particular information the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.

I have highlighted a couple grammatical mistakes in red. I'm sure you would have noticed that typos already. Also, you have to use line breaks to separate paragraphs.
Your argument seems structured. Although the examples you give can be a bit more fleshed out.

I felt you were onto something when you said that you cannot curb FoE by banning political organizations that are violent. But you need to present that in a more nuanced way. FoE comes with caveats, one of them quite clearly says FoE cannot be used to condone or promote violence (and I think the actions talked about here fall in that bracket). So, you might want to flesh out your arguments a bit more. But all in all, a decent piece!
Re: AWA evalute &nbs [#permalink] 26 Jul 2018, 10:13
Display posts from previous: Sort by