Last visit was: 25 Apr 2026, 01:05 It is currently 25 Apr 2026, 01:05
Home
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Close
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
Your Progress

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
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
User avatar
DeuvuSharma
User avatar
Joined: 09 Mar 2023
Last visit: 20 Dec 2023
Posts: 19
Own Kudos:
7
Given Kudos: 25
Location: India
Concentration: Sustainability, Leadership
Schools: Wharton '26 Yale '26 Darden '26 (II) Rotman '26 Fuqua '26 (D) Anderson '26 (WL)
GPA: 3.7
WE:Research (Non-Profit and Government)
Schools: Wharton '26 Yale '26 Darden '26 (II) Rotman '26 Fuqua '26 (D) Anderson '26 (WL)
Posts: 19
Kudos: 7
Any political organization that advocates the use of violence 18 Aug 2023, 07:47
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Sajjad1994

Requesting for an evaluation of my Essay on the undermentioned 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”


Discuss how well-reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.

ESSAY

The argument posits that political organizations advocating violence should be prohibited from operating within the nation due to their potential for causing long-term problems. While the argument raises valid concerns, it presents several flawed assumptions that weaken its overall logic.

The argument's primary weakness lies in its vague use of the term "violence." Not all forms of violence necessarily lead to harm or detriment. For instance, a political organization might employ a forceful approach to counter societal hooliganism, serving the broader interest of public safety. This highlights the need for clarity in defining the nature and intent of the violence advocated.

Furthermore, the argument assumes a direct correlation between advocating violence and achieving organizational goals. However, this link is not always straightforward. Some organizations might adopt violent tactics as a means of defense or as a last resort, rather than as a deliberate strategy to achieve their objectives. Without concrete examples demonstrating a consistent pattern of violence being used for achieving goals, the argument's assertion remains unsubstantiated.

Moreover, the argument's assertion that violent solutions inevitably lead to long-term problems overlooks historical contexts where violence has achieved positive societal changes. Movements for national liberation have at times embraced violence to resist oppression and secure self-governance. While violence can indeed have negative consequences, the argument's oversimplification fails to consider instances where it has served as a catalyst for progress.

In conclusion, while the argument brings attention to the potential risks associated with political organizations advocating violence, its assumptions are undermined by the lack of clarity, the absence of strong evidence linking violence to goal achievement, and its failure to acknowledge historical examples where violence contributed to positive change. A more nuanced consideration of different contexts and motivations surrounding violence would be necessary to strengthen the argument's validity.
User avatar
UK770
User avatar
Joined: 01 Dec 2022
Last visit: 28 Nov 2023
Posts: 17
Own Kudos:
7
Given Kudos: 22
Location: Uzbekistan
Posts: 17
Kudos: 7
Any political organization that advocates the use of violence 18 Aug 2023, 08:40
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
DeuvuSharma
Sajjad1994

Requesting for an evaluation of my Essay on the undermentioned 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”


Discuss how well-reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.

ESSAY

The argument posits that political organizations advocating violence should be prohibited from operating within the nation due to their potential for causing long-term problems. While the argument raises valid concerns, it presents several flawed assumptions that weaken its overall logic.

The argument's primary weakness lies in its vague use of the term "violence." Not all forms of violence necessarily lead to harm or detriment. For instance, a political organization might employ a forceful approach to counter societal hooliganism, serving the broader interest of public safety. This highlights the need for clarity in defining the nature and intent of the violence advocated.

Furthermore, the argument assumes a direct correlation between advocating violence and achieving organizational goals. However, this link is not always straightforward. Some organizations might adopt violent tactics as a means of defense or as a last resort, rather than as a deliberate strategy to achieve their objectives. Without concrete examples demonstrating a consistent pattern of violence being used for achieving goals, the argument's assertion remains unsubstantiated.

Moreover, the argument's assertion that violent solutions inevitably lead to long-term problems overlooks historical contexts where violence has achieved positive societal changes. Movements for national liberation have at times embraced violence to resist oppression and secure self-governance. While violence can indeed have negative consequences, the argument's oversimplification fails to consider instances where it has served as a catalyst for progress.

In conclusion, while the argument brings attention to the potential risks associated with political organizations advocating violence, its assumptions are undermined by the lack of clarity, the absence of strong evidence linking violence to goal achievement, and its failure to acknowledge historical examples where violence contributed to positive change. A more nuanced consideration of different contexts and motivations surrounding violence would be necessary to strengthen the argument's validity.
Show more

Good job! Well structured. Good cohesive devices are used. There is Logical flow. 5/6

Posted from my mobile device
User avatar
Sajjad1994
User avatar
GRE Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Last visit: 24 Apr 2026
Posts: 16,773
Own Kudos:
51,918
 [1]
Given Kudos: 6,334
GPA: 3.62
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Posts: 16,773
Kudos: 51,918
 [1]
Any political organization that advocates the use of violence 18 Aug 2023, 10:49
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
AWA Score: 5.5 - 6 out of 6

Coherence and connectivity: 6
The essay is well-structured and coherent, with a clear introduction, body paragraphs discussing different flaws in the argument, and a solid conclusion. The ideas flow logically from one point to the next, enhancing the overall coherence.

Word structure: 6
The word structure is strong, with well-constructed sentences that effectively convey the author's analysis. The essay presents a clear and concise expression of ideas without unnecessary verbosity.

Paragraph structure and formation: 6
The essay is well-organized into paragraphs, each focusing on a specific flaw in the argument. The paragraphs have clear topic sentences and provide thorough analysis. The structure contributes to the essay's overall clarity and readability.

Language and Grammar: 6
The language and grammar are excellent, with accurate usage and effective sentence structures. The essay effectively communicates the author's ideas without significant grammatical errors.

Vocabulary and word expression: 5.5
The vocabulary and word expression are strong and appropriate for conveying the analysis. While the essay effectively conveys the author's points, a slightly wider range of vocabulary could further enhance the essay's impact.

Overall, the essay presents a well-structured and thoughtfully analyzed response to the argument's flaws. The writing is clear, coherent, and logically progresses through the different points of analysis. With minor improvements in vocabulary diversity, the essay would be even more compelling. The essay falls between 5.5 and 6 on the scoring scale, with a score of 6 being slightly more appropriate.

DeuvuSharma
Sajjad1994

Requesting for an evaluation of my Essay on the undermentioned 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”


Discuss how well-reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.

ESSAY

The argument posits that political organizations advocating violence should be prohibited from operating within the nation due to their potential for causing long-term problems. While the argument raises valid concerns, it presents several flawed assumptions that weaken its overall logic.

The argument's primary weakness lies in its vague use of the term "violence." Not all forms of violence necessarily lead to harm or detriment. For instance, a political organization might employ a forceful approach to counter societal hooliganism, serving the broader interest of public safety. This highlights the need for clarity in defining the nature and intent of the violence advocated.

Furthermore, the argument assumes a direct correlation between advocating violence and achieving organizational goals. However, this link is not always straightforward. Some organizations might adopt violent tactics as a means of defense or as a last resort, rather than as a deliberate strategy to achieve their objectives. Without concrete examples demonstrating a consistent pattern of violence being used for achieving goals, the argument's assertion remains unsubstantiated.

Moreover, the argument's assertion that violent solutions inevitably lead to long-term problems overlooks historical contexts where violence has achieved positive societal changes. Movements for national liberation have at times embraced violence to resist oppression and secure self-governance. While violence can indeed have negative consequences, the argument's oversimplification fails to consider instances where it has served as a catalyst for progress.

In conclusion, while the argument brings attention to the potential risks associated with political organizations advocating violence, its assumptions are undermined by the lack of clarity, the absence of strong evidence linking violence to goal achievement, and its failure to acknowledge historical examples where violence contributed to positive change. A more nuanced consideration of different contexts and motivations surrounding violence would be necessary to strengthen the argument's validity.
Show more
Moderator:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7391 posts