Prompt: "Any political organization that advocates the use of violence to achieve its goals should be prohibited from operating within our nation. Such groups are detrimental to society since violent, short-term solutions can only lead to more serious long-term problems."

The argument that a political party ,which uses violence to achieve its goals should be prohibited as these kind of parties cannot bring long term problems ,is not cogent enough as it fails to give a statistics of the cause of violence used , whether the citizens of that nation are unruly or violent themselves and thirdly all the competing parties use violence to establish power.

Firstly, the author has not provided any reasoning of the cause and effect of the political party's violent activities.There may be the case that a party indulged only once in a fight and this has been blown out of proportion.For example for the fight of Independence of India from the British Rule , the Indian politicians had to take up arms and fight for a cause when British tried to exploit them and own India and make Indians slaves under British people.

Secondly, it has also nowhere mentioned that why the political party has taken up violent means.There can be a possibility that the crime rate and violent rate of the people in that country are unrestrained , hence to provide a point or claim, the political party had to take unfair means.Like in Mexico , the political party went on a rampage to establish its hold.

Thirdly, when all the political parties are taking unfair means then there lies no point that the said party would not use violence.

Therefore taking into account these flaws it is finally concluded that the argument lacks many valid evidences and it is merely an assumption on which the author has cited his conclusion.Thus the argument in order to be persuasive should have to provide the above mentioned clarifications.