-
parul9
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 197
- Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 10:22 am
- Thanked: 6 times
- Followed by:2 members
AWA-Argument
Prompt: "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."
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.
Response:
The argument above states that freedom of speech is very important for the induction of new ideas in a society and that all the limits on freedon of expression should be eliminated to ensure a thriving society. While I agree with the opening line of the argument I am in disagreement with the concusion it draws based on it.
The argument rightly states that a society can stagnate without new ideas. Also, for widespread introduction of new ideas in a society, freedom of expression is very important. However, to say that it is the "only" way in which new ideas can be introduced in a society would be stretching the premise too far. Most of the inventions and discoveries done during the times of Newton and also Galileo before him, were done in times when there were a lot of restrictions put to expressions of the general public.
The argument is based on the assumption that new ideas can only be proliferated in a society by freedom of speech. In doing so, the argument overlooks other mechanisms that could be present in a society for spreading such ideas. For example, the findings of the experts could be subject to submission and publication after their claims have been verified. Smilarly, there could be other structural procedures and mechanisms put in place in a society to ensure new ideas are recognised and encouraged.
The conclusion of the argument too sways to an extreme. To suggest that "all" the limits on freedom of expression should be lifted is very naive. There are other aspects of limitless freedom of expression that need to be considered before drawing any conclusions on the significance of its introduction.
The argument starts at a very idealisitic note, but makes very generic and inaccurate assumption in its due course to reach an even more inaccurate conclusion. The argument should have considered other aspects of freedom of speech and also brought to notice how the lack of this freedom has affected societies over time.
To sum it up, the argument leaves a lot of scope for rebuttal. There are gaping holes in the logical structure that can be easily pointed out to weaken the argument. Perhaps, adding more substance to the claims and explicating the assumptions could have helped the author make a more reasonable conclusion than the existing one.
Prompt: "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."
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.
Response:
The argument above states that freedom of speech is very important for the induction of new ideas in a society and that all the limits on freedon of expression should be eliminated to ensure a thriving society. While I agree with the opening line of the argument I am in disagreement with the concusion it draws based on it.
The argument rightly states that a society can stagnate without new ideas. Also, for widespread introduction of new ideas in a society, freedom of expression is very important. However, to say that it is the "only" way in which new ideas can be introduced in a society would be stretching the premise too far. Most of the inventions and discoveries done during the times of Newton and also Galileo before him, were done in times when there were a lot of restrictions put to expressions of the general public.
The argument is based on the assumption that new ideas can only be proliferated in a society by freedom of speech. In doing so, the argument overlooks other mechanisms that could be present in a society for spreading such ideas. For example, the findings of the experts could be subject to submission and publication after their claims have been verified. Smilarly, there could be other structural procedures and mechanisms put in place in a society to ensure new ideas are recognised and encouraged.
The conclusion of the argument too sways to an extreme. To suggest that "all" the limits on freedom of expression should be lifted is very naive. There are other aspects of limitless freedom of expression that need to be considered before drawing any conclusions on the significance of its introduction.
The argument starts at a very idealisitic note, but makes very generic and inaccurate assumption in its due course to reach an even more inaccurate conclusion. The argument should have considered other aspects of freedom of speech and also brought to notice how the lack of this freedom has affected societies over time.
To sum it up, the argument leaves a lot of scope for rebuttal. There are gaping holes in the logical structure that can be easily pointed out to weaken the argument. Perhaps, adding more substance to the claims and explicating the assumptions could have helped the author make a more reasonable conclusion than the existing one.
