"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 ...
Essay:
The author's argument that for a society to thrive, all limits on freedom of expression should be eliminated, on first glance seems to be cogent, but on a careful second glance is week due to unsubstantiated assumptions and false premises that the argument failed to provide.
Most importantly, the author's premises that "new ideas can only be introduced in a society that permits freedom of expression", and "without any ideas, any society will stagnate", lacks examples and proof of these statements. The argument would have been more logical if the author would have provided the case study or report of a survey that shows that no society will thrive without new innovative ideas.
Moreover, author's assumption that to introduce a new idea, all sorts of limitations on freedom of expression should be eliminated, is invalid. There are examples when instead of no freedom of expression, people have introduced new ideas that have changes the world. For example, Galileo, when first introduced the concept of Earth rotating around Sun, received a lot of criticism for his idea to the degree that he be hanged to death, but this is the idea that later changed the perception of people and helped scientists to unravel many mystries of the universe.
In addition, the author's assumption that only introducing new ideas can make a way to a society stable lacks solid reasoning. There are other things that make a society stable and better such as technological advancement, architectural heritage, people's earnings, etc. The author has failed to include these points into consideration while making a bold statement that no society will thrive without new ideas.
In sum, the author's argument that a society will be stable by introducing new ideas and by eliminating all limitations on freedom of expression, is illogical. The author's argument will be more convincing if he would have taken the points such as proof that society cannot thrive without new ideas, and other things that make society stable, into consideration.
Discuss how well-reasoned ...
Essay:
The author's argument that for a society to thrive, all limits on freedom of expression should be eliminated, on first glance seems to be cogent, but on a careful second glance is week due to unsubstantiated assumptions and false premises that the argument failed to provide.
Most importantly, the author's premises that "new ideas can only be introduced in a society that permits freedom of expression", and "without any ideas, any society will stagnate", lacks examples and proof of these statements. The argument would have been more logical if the author would have provided the case study or report of a survey that shows that no society will thrive without new innovative ideas.
Moreover, author's assumption that to introduce a new idea, all sorts of limitations on freedom of expression should be eliminated, is invalid. There are examples when instead of no freedom of expression, people have introduced new ideas that have changes the world. For example, Galileo, when first introduced the concept of Earth rotating around Sun, received a lot of criticism for his idea to the degree that he be hanged to death, but this is the idea that later changed the perception of people and helped scientists to unravel many mystries of the universe.
In addition, the author's assumption that only introducing new ideas can make a way to a society stable lacks solid reasoning. There are other things that make a society stable and better such as technological advancement, architectural heritage, people's earnings, etc. The author has failed to include these points into consideration while making a bold statement that no society will thrive without new ideas.
In sum, the author's argument that a society will be stable by introducing new ideas and by eliminating all limitations on freedom of expression, is illogical. The author's argument will be more convincing if he would have taken the points such as proof that society cannot thrive without new ideas, and other things that make society stable, into consideration.
