"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."
'Freedom' is the keyword in any democratic society; But the 'extent of freedom' has always been debated by many. In the preceding argument author suggests that to endorse new ideas we should adopt the strategy of complete freedom. Though this claim may well have merit, Author present poorly reasoned argument based on several questionable premises and assumptions, and based solely on the evidence the author offers. We can't accept this argument as valid.
Primary issue with author's reasoning lies in lack of clarity in his premises. Author only says 'lack of new ideas' can stagnate the society, but never elucidates on what sort of new ideas he is talking about. New ideas can thrive in any domain, for an example 9/11 had been very new idea by terrorists. Without proper checks and control no new idea can be verified whether it is beneficial or detrimental for the society. Complete freedom will only create anarchy in the society.
In addition, Author makes several assumptions that remain unproven. Author assumes that all new ideas whatever they may be, will only do good to society. Author neglects the possibility that society comprises of good and bad people, people of different ages, skills, attitudes and class. Even though there are many differences among the people of society, one has to consider a goal which can do common good but harm society as a whole. There can be different impact of elimination of all limits of expression on different people who comprises the society. Author completely over looked this fact. Author only concludes that for society to thrive, all limits on freedom of expression should be removed. His conclusion is completely unsubstantiated, as he puts no evidence whatsoever on what limits the new ideas. Besides, Author doesn't provide any examples to clarify his argument, Author weakens his argument by making assumptions and failing to provide explanation of the logical links, which he assumes exists.
Author could have strengthened his argument by providing few examples and further clarifying about new ideas and relation between endorsements of those for overcoming the stagnancy in society. Author does have several key issues, that don't say that the entire argument is without base. Though there are several issues with the author's reasoning at present, with research and clarification his argument can be significantly improved.
In sum, the author's illogical argument based on unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptions that render his conclusion invalid.
'Freedom' is the keyword in any democratic society; But the 'extent of freedom' has always been debated by many. In the preceding argument author suggests that to endorse new ideas we should adopt the strategy of complete freedom. Though this claim may well have merit, Author present poorly reasoned argument based on several questionable premises and assumptions, and based solely on the evidence the author offers. We can't accept this argument as valid.
Primary issue with author's reasoning lies in lack of clarity in his premises. Author only says 'lack of new ideas' can stagnate the society, but never elucidates on what sort of new ideas he is talking about. New ideas can thrive in any domain, for an example 9/11 had been very new idea by terrorists. Without proper checks and control no new idea can be verified whether it is beneficial or detrimental for the society. Complete freedom will only create anarchy in the society.
In addition, Author makes several assumptions that remain unproven. Author assumes that all new ideas whatever they may be, will only do good to society. Author neglects the possibility that society comprises of good and bad people, people of different ages, skills, attitudes and class. Even though there are many differences among the people of society, one has to consider a goal which can do common good but harm society as a whole. There can be different impact of elimination of all limits of expression on different people who comprises the society. Author completely over looked this fact. Author only concludes that for society to thrive, all limits on freedom of expression should be removed. His conclusion is completely unsubstantiated, as he puts no evidence whatsoever on what limits the new ideas. Besides, Author doesn't provide any examples to clarify his argument, Author weakens his argument by making assumptions and failing to provide explanation of the logical links, which he assumes exists.
Author could have strengthened his argument by providing few examples and further clarifying about new ideas and relation between endorsements of those for overcoming the stagnancy in society. Author does have several key issues, that don't say that the entire argument is without base. Though there are several issues with the author's reasoning at present, with research and clarification his argument can be significantly improved.
In sum, the author's illogical argument based on unsupported premises and unsubstantiated assumptions that render his conclusion invalid.
