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.”
Assignment: 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.
--------------------------------------
The author's arguement that political organization which advocate violent methods to acheive their goals cause serious long term problems is not very convincing and it needs more evidence to be provided to support the conclusions.
Firstly, the author assumes that short term violence always leads to long term serious problems. This is not always the case. During the early 20th century when many nations were fighting for their independence, the political organization fighting for freedom advocated the need for violence to achieve their freedom. The fact that many nations succeeded in getting freedom, goes to show that the violence doesn't always end up in long term serious problems. To strengthen his point, the author could have supported his statement by providing evidence that the country is a stable, democratic country where the political goals are obtained through dialogues and not violence.
Secondly, the author fails to elaborate on what the short term solutions are and what the long term problems are? From the authors point, the long term problems could be an increased crime rate and the short term solution could have been related to restricting freedom of speech by using violence. It is left to the readers imagination and hence it is not very convincing. The argument could have been strengthened by stating that using violence to restrict the freedom of speech of people could lead to long term issues such as increased crime rate.
Finally, The goals of the political organizations are not clearly stated in the argument as well. This might lead to the assumption by the reader that the only goal of a political organization is to cause harm to the society. However, the goal might have been something which a society might actually want, for example freedom of speech. Also, there might not have been any other method of obtaining it other than using violence. So, the author's argument can be strengthen by providing more evidence on the goals of the political organization.
In conclusion, the argument has a valid point but the lack of proper evidence makes it a unconvincing one. If the author provides evidence on the political organization's goal, qualifies the principles of the nation, identifies the short term solutions and long term problems, it will help the reader to understand the argument better and be convinced as well.
Assignment: 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.
--------------------------------------
The author's arguement that political organization which advocate violent methods to acheive their goals cause serious long term problems is not very convincing and it needs more evidence to be provided to support the conclusions.
Firstly, the author assumes that short term violence always leads to long term serious problems. This is not always the case. During the early 20th century when many nations were fighting for their independence, the political organization fighting for freedom advocated the need for violence to achieve their freedom. The fact that many nations succeeded in getting freedom, goes to show that the violence doesn't always end up in long term serious problems. To strengthen his point, the author could have supported his statement by providing evidence that the country is a stable, democratic country where the political goals are obtained through dialogues and not violence.
Secondly, the author fails to elaborate on what the short term solutions are and what the long term problems are? From the authors point, the long term problems could be an increased crime rate and the short term solution could have been related to restricting freedom of speech by using violence. It is left to the readers imagination and hence it is not very convincing. The argument could have been strengthened by stating that using violence to restrict the freedom of speech of people could lead to long term issues such as increased crime rate.
Finally, The goals of the political organizations are not clearly stated in the argument as well. This might lead to the assumption by the reader that the only goal of a political organization is to cause harm to the society. However, the goal might have been something which a society might actually want, for example freedom of speech. Also, there might not have been any other method of obtaining it other than using violence. So, the author's argument can be strengthen by providing more evidence on the goals of the political organization.
In conclusion, the argument has a valid point but the lack of proper evidence makes it a unconvincing one. If the author provides evidence on the political organization's goal, qualifies the principles of the nation, identifies the short term solutions and long term problems, it will help the reader to understand the argument better and be convinced as well.
