Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Please review my first argument essay [#permalink]
04 Jul 2010, 06:41
"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."
Discuss how well-reasoned ...
The author's argument that for a society to thrive, all limits on freedom of expression should be eliminated, on first glance seems to be cogent, but on a careful second glance is week due to unsubstantiated assumptions and false premises that the argument failed to provide.
Most importantly, the author's premises that "new ideas can only be introduced in a society that permits freedom of expression", and "without any ideas, any society will stagnate", lacks examples and proof of these statements. The argument would have been more logical if the author would have provided the case study or report of a survey that shows that no society will thrive without new innovative ideas.
Moreover, author's assumption that to introduce a new idea, all sorts of limitations on freedom of expression should be eliminated, is invalid. There are examples when instead of no freedom of expression, people have introduced new ideas that have changes the world. For example, Galileo, when first introduced the concept of Earth rotating around Sun, received a lot of criticism for his idea to the degree that he be hanged to death, but this is the idea that later changed the perception of people and helped scientists to unravel many mystries of the universe.
In addition, the author's assumption that only introducing new ideas can make a way to a society stable lacks solid reasoning. There are other things that make a society stable and better such as technological advancement, architectural heritage, people's earnings, etc. The author has failed to include these points into consideration while making a bold statement that no society will thrive without new ideas.
In sum, the author's argument that a society will be stable by introducing new ideas and by eliminating all limitations on freedom of expression, is illogical. The author's argument will be more convincing if he would have taken the points such as proof that society cannot thrive without new ideas, and other things that make society stable, into consideration.
Re: Please review my first argument essay [#permalink]
08 Jul 2010, 05:30
Here is my essay on the said argument.
The author of the argument claims that without new ideas, a society stagnates & the introduction of new ideas is subject to freedom of expression. The author claims that if a society has to thrive, all the limits on freedom of expression should be eliminated. Stated in this way the argument fails to mention several key factors on the basis of which it could be evaluated. The conclusion relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence the argument is an unconvincing one & is flawed.
First, the argument assumes that if in a society there are no new ideas being emerged, then that society is a stagnated one. The argument is a stretch & not substantial in any way. There are numerous examples where the world have seen a society growing rapidly no on the basis of innovations done within the society but by some default mean. For instance, there are a number of countries in Middle East, where the societies grew rapidly in every aspect of modern day of life only due to the presence of rich resources in that country. Innovation didn’t play a significant role in the country’s development. Having said that, we cant say that in every case a country can develop itself without innovation, but at the same time we cant assume that without new ideas a society stagnates.
Second, the argument readily assumes that new ideas can only be introduced in a society that permits freedom of expression. Here again, by using the extreme word “only”, the argument has adopted an extreme stance. Through out the modern history, we can quote the times when innovations & new ideas emerged despite of the fact that there was no permission for freedom of expression. For instance, all the major developments in the subject of Science & Mathematics were done in the time when there was no concept of democracy in the world. If we go back to the early 11th & 12th century, the basics of algebra were defined & the new concepts were introduced & one should not forget that these were the times when no change was being accepted easily by the society. Hence the assumption based on the correlation of new ideas & freedom of expression is weak & unsupported.
Finally, the argument concludes that if a society has to thrive, all limits on freedom of expression should be eliminated. From this statement again, the author fails to identify the consequences of this suggestion. The author has not illustrated that what will be the outcome if all the limits on freedom of expression are eliminated. Will the purpose be solved or the society will enter an era with bunch of new problems. In summary, the argument is flawed & therefore unconvincing. The argument could have been reasonably strengthened, had the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts & the supporting evidence were provided. In order to analyze & present a case, all the relevant areas should be addressed & one should have the knowledge of all the contributing factors.