"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 response:
In the preceding statement, the author wants to convince people that eliminating all limits on freedom of expression will lead a society to prosperity. The writer prove his claim by showing that any society will stagnate if it has not new ideas and new ideas can only be introduced in a society that permits freedom of expression. Although his argument may have some merit,he present a defectively reasoned argument based on several questionable premises and unsubstantiated assumptions. Therefore, using solely what the author offers, we cannot accept his arguments as valid.
The author's premises, the basic of his arguments, lack legitimate evidential support, rendering his argument irrational. In the statement, the author asserts that without new ideas, any society will stagnate and new ideas can only be introduced in a society that permits freedom of expression. However, the writer does not provide any support for this statement. For example, he draws this statement by his own observation or through researches. without showing why he can draw this statement. His premises are very questionable.
Furthermore, the authors base his argument on a questionable assumption that limits on freedom of expression are only factors preventing a society from reaching toward thrive. In fact, there are many elements in a society can lead a society to prosperity such as the talent of the leaders, a good management system. In feudal regime, although limits on freedom of speech are very strict, we can see that many states in feudal regime were very prosperous.
Although there are many problems with the writer's claim, we cannot say that his argument is without base. There are several ways the author can use to improve his reasoning and hence persuade more people. For example, the author can provide some information relating to the premises, such as the source from which he use to supply premises. By using a good source, he can prove what he says in the premises is trustworthy. Moreover, he should supply some evidence to prove that freedom of expression is one single factor affecting the thrive of a society. By doing these things, the writer can make his argument more convinced.
In sum, the author's argument are irrational because it bases on unproven assumption and questionable premises. If the writer truly hopes to improve his argument, he would have to largely restructure his argument, fix the flaws in his logic and clearly explicate his assumption and provide evidential support. Without these things, his poorly reasoned argument will likely convince few people.
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 response:
In the preceding statement, the author wants to convince people that eliminating all limits on freedom of expression will lead a society to prosperity. The writer prove his claim by showing that any society will stagnate if it has not new ideas and new ideas can only be introduced in a society that permits freedom of expression. Although his argument may have some merit,he present a defectively reasoned argument based on several questionable premises and unsubstantiated assumptions. Therefore, using solely what the author offers, we cannot accept his arguments as valid.
The author's premises, the basic of his arguments, lack legitimate evidential support, rendering his argument irrational. In the statement, the author asserts that without new ideas, any society will stagnate and new ideas can only be introduced in a society that permits freedom of expression. However, the writer does not provide any support for this statement. For example, he draws this statement by his own observation or through researches. without showing why he can draw this statement. His premises are very questionable.
Furthermore, the authors base his argument on a questionable assumption that limits on freedom of expression are only factors preventing a society from reaching toward thrive. In fact, there are many elements in a society can lead a society to prosperity such as the talent of the leaders, a good management system. In feudal regime, although limits on freedom of speech are very strict, we can see that many states in feudal regime were very prosperous.
Although there are many problems with the writer's claim, we cannot say that his argument is without base. There are several ways the author can use to improve his reasoning and hence persuade more people. For example, the author can provide some information relating to the premises, such as the source from which he use to supply premises. By using a good source, he can prove what he says in the premises is trustworthy. Moreover, he should supply some evidence to prove that freedom of expression is one single factor affecting the thrive of a society. By doing these things, the writer can make his argument more convinced.
In sum, the author's argument are irrational because it bases on unproven assumption and questionable premises. If the writer truly hopes to improve his argument, he would have to largely restructure his argument, fix the flaws in his logic and clearly explicate his assumption and provide evidential support. Without these things, his poorly reasoned argument will likely convince few people.
