-
mssampathms
- Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 9:35 pm
- Location: Bangalore
- Thanked: 1 times
- GMAT Score:680
"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."
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.
My essay
Freedom of speech and expression is one of the basic rights of any human being. However, this is a topic that generates strong debates, not solely due to restrictions on this freedom, but also on its misuse. In the above note, the author makes a case for removing all limits on the freedom of expression. She cites as a premise that freedom of expression is the only way in which new ideas will evolve, which is essential to a thriving and vibrant society. However, the argument that the author presents is highly flawed and is based on several questionable assumptions that render the conclusion highly doubtful.
The primary flaw with the author's argument is her unsubstantiated premises. In her argument, the author says that new ideas can only be introduced in a society that permits freedom of expression. However, freedom of expression has never been a prerequisite for generation of new ideas. For instance, scientists like Galileo and Copernicus lived in an era where freedom of expression was hardly permitted. However, this never stopped them from coming up with their new theories that were in direct contradiction to the strong beliefs of the day. Even in the most repressive regimes, people have managed to find different and highly subtle ways of manifesting their creative expression. New ideas are generated based on the creative extent of individuals in a society. While it can be said that freedom of expression would encourage new ideas, this can never be the prerequisite for new ideas.
In addition, another major flaw that the author makes is in her assumption that with limits put on the freedom of expression will inhibit creation of new ideas. However, it can be practically be seen that without limits on this freedom, it is more prone to abuse than creative expression. A recent case in point is the caricatures made by an artist purported to depict the prophet Mohammed. The chaos and violence that followed the world over proves the dangerous effects of uncontrolled freedom of expression. On the other hand, imposing reasonable limits on the freedom of expression has never been an obstacle to creative ideas.
Although the author's argument has many flaws, this is not to say that her entire argument is without any merit. The author may have a valid point that ideas are important in a thriving society, it cannot be concluded that all the limits on the freedom of expression should be eliminated. The author will have to restructure her argument and provide a more structured approach to her premises, validate her assumptions and then provide an appropriate conclusion. Due to the fallacies in her current line of reasoning, the author's argument cannot be accepted as logical and convincing.
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.
My essay
Freedom of speech and expression is one of the basic rights of any human being. However, this is a topic that generates strong debates, not solely due to restrictions on this freedom, but also on its misuse. In the above note, the author makes a case for removing all limits on the freedom of expression. She cites as a premise that freedom of expression is the only way in which new ideas will evolve, which is essential to a thriving and vibrant society. However, the argument that the author presents is highly flawed and is based on several questionable assumptions that render the conclusion highly doubtful.
The primary flaw with the author's argument is her unsubstantiated premises. In her argument, the author says that new ideas can only be introduced in a society that permits freedom of expression. However, freedom of expression has never been a prerequisite for generation of new ideas. For instance, scientists like Galileo and Copernicus lived in an era where freedom of expression was hardly permitted. However, this never stopped them from coming up with their new theories that were in direct contradiction to the strong beliefs of the day. Even in the most repressive regimes, people have managed to find different and highly subtle ways of manifesting their creative expression. New ideas are generated based on the creative extent of individuals in a society. While it can be said that freedom of expression would encourage new ideas, this can never be the prerequisite for new ideas.
In addition, another major flaw that the author makes is in her assumption that with limits put on the freedom of expression will inhibit creation of new ideas. However, it can be practically be seen that without limits on this freedom, it is more prone to abuse than creative expression. A recent case in point is the caricatures made by an artist purported to depict the prophet Mohammed. The chaos and violence that followed the world over proves the dangerous effects of uncontrolled freedom of expression. On the other hand, imposing reasonable limits on the freedom of expression has never been an obstacle to creative ideas.
Although the author's argument has many flaws, this is not to say that her entire argument is without any merit. The author may have a valid point that ideas are important in a thriving society, it cannot be concluded that all the limits on the freedom of expression should be eliminated. The author will have to restructure her argument and provide a more structured approach to her premises, validate her assumptions and then provide an appropriate conclusion. Due to the fallacies in her current line of reasoning, the author's argument cannot be accepted as logical and convincing.
