"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."
----------
Argument:
The author states that any political organization that advocates the use of violence to achieve its goals should be prohibited from operating within our nation. The author's line of reasoning is that such groups provide just short term solutions and are detrimental to society. The argument is unconvincing for several reasons. It is based on certain assumptions that the author makes without any supporting proof.
First of all, the author gives a broad statement without the conditions in which the political organization operates. The conditions may compell the political organization to take necessary actions to bring the situation under control. Consider and example of a political party which was lead by Mr Subash Chandra Bose, who fought for independence. This organization had no chioce but to choose the path of violence against the cruelty of the rulers. This does not mean that the organization would be detrimental to society as it was fighting for the same.
Secondaly, the author does not give the extent of violence, used by the organization, in various situations. For example, a person who is walking in a wrong direction, and is unikely to change his path , may be brought back to the right direction by applying some amount of pressure. This does not mean the method used will necessarily cause a negative impact. It depends on the amount of the pressure applied. If controlled, may have a positive impact.
Finally, the author fails to analyse the cause behind the way the political organization works. It may be possible that the organization needs take certain measures to handle situations, which go beyond human control. For instance, in case of riots, if a mob tries to destroy properties, the political organization may need to take certain measures to calm the mob.
In sum, I agree that the organization should not always use violence to achieve their goals. However, the organization may need to use violence to a certain extent, in certain situations, to achieve a long term goal.
The argument could be strengthened if the author elaborates more on the situations and extent to which the violence is applied.
---------------
Please let me know your feedback. I am not sure where i stand !
----------
Argument:
The author states that any political organization that advocates the use of violence to achieve its goals should be prohibited from operating within our nation. The author's line of reasoning is that such groups provide just short term solutions and are detrimental to society. The argument is unconvincing for several reasons. It is based on certain assumptions that the author makes without any supporting proof.
First of all, the author gives a broad statement without the conditions in which the political organization operates. The conditions may compell the political organization to take necessary actions to bring the situation under control. Consider and example of a political party which was lead by Mr Subash Chandra Bose, who fought for independence. This organization had no chioce but to choose the path of violence against the cruelty of the rulers. This does not mean that the organization would be detrimental to society as it was fighting for the same.
Secondaly, the author does not give the extent of violence, used by the organization, in various situations. For example, a person who is walking in a wrong direction, and is unikely to change his path , may be brought back to the right direction by applying some amount of pressure. This does not mean the method used will necessarily cause a negative impact. It depends on the amount of the pressure applied. If controlled, may have a positive impact.
Finally, the author fails to analyse the cause behind the way the political organization works. It may be possible that the organization needs take certain measures to handle situations, which go beyond human control. For instance, in case of riots, if a mob tries to destroy properties, the political organization may need to take certain measures to calm the mob.
In sum, I agree that the organization should not always use violence to achieve their goals. However, the organization may need to use violence to a certain extent, in certain situations, to achieve a long term goal.
The argument could be strengthened if the author elaborates more on the situations and extent to which the violence is applied.
---------------
Please let me know your feedback. I am not sure where i stand !
