"Without new ideas, any society will stagnate. - Evalua

[varundaga05]

"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."

The argument that for society to thrive, all limits on freedom of expression should be eliminated, is not completely sound. There are some crucial assumptions which are ignored in the statement.

One assumption that the statement makes is that without new ideas, any society will stagnate. There are number of reasons this might not be true. It does not clearly mention whether the ideas are good or bad to the society. Some new ideas may be detrimental to the society. For example the use of weapons of mass destruction. Though it is a new idea it has the potential to completely destory the human civilization. So for this assumption to hold good it must be mentioned that the ideas should be constructive to the development of the society.

Second, the argument assumes that the there should not be any limits on the freedom of expression. Now this assumptions suffers from various flaws. As a matter of fact there should be some limit to the freedom of expression otherwise it can be destructive to the society. If under the name of freedom of expression anti social elements spread wrong ideas and destructive messages then this will not help society but will affect the society. So the argument should clearly what freedom of expression will help the society and what can cause negative effect.

Thus the argument is not completely sound. If the above points like good ideas and proper freedom of speech was taken into the consideration then the argument might have been strengthen.

[grockit_andrea]

You've done a good job adhering to a clear structure, and using strong organization. However, there are a few problems with your essay. First, both your introduction and conclusion are too short. You can fill the intro out by providing a roadmap of the points you will be making in your essay. Making the conclusion longer is tricky, but it can be done; read some of the sample essays in the OG for an example. The other major problem here is that the two things you list as assumptions are not, in fact, assumptions. An assumption is something unstated, and the two things you pointed out are clearly stated in the prompt. Using your argument, you can rephrase your explanation of these points to say something like, "the author states that without new ideas, any society will stagnate, but fails to address the impact of potentially dangerous ideas..."
Anyway, I checked the 3 box here, but I was pretty torn on that. I'd say this could be a 3 or a 4, depending on your reader.