"Any political organization that advocates the use of violence to achieve its goals should be prohibited from operating within our nation. Such groups are detrimental to society since violent, short-term solutions can only lead to more serious long-term problems."
The arugement that any political organization that advocates the use of violence to acheive its goals should be prohibited is based on various assumptions which have not been properly justfied. Unless we have a clear idea of the situation the statement suffers from many drawbacks.
One of the assumption that the political organization that advocates the use of violence to acheive its goal should be prohibited. But the author does not state what are the goals, does the organization advocates voilence every time, or is it a very specific case. No two situations are same , so one has to understand under what scenario the organization is advocating violence. One of the reasons can be that the country is being attacked by some foreign country, at that time for any political organization would advocate the use of voilence for self protection. So the statement could have been made strong if the backdrop of the situation was provided.
Another assumption is that such organization is detrimental to society is a general statement that needs to be supported by some more information. Is the organization advocating violence against its own country or against some other country or it is because some terrorits or anti social elements have raised war against the country and so the organization is advocating violence. The statement could have been strengthen if the proper reasons for advocating violence was provided by the author.
The assumption that short term solutions can only lead to more serious long term problems need to be more elaborated. One reason for a short term violence can be that the country is suddenly attached by some foreign country or terrorits , in that case it is in benefit to protect oneself and to indulge in violence for self protection. For long term it is benefitial if violence is adopted for short term otherwise the country might be takenover by another country. So to strenghthen the arugment the author must mention why the short term solutions can lead to more serious long term problems if the author has a genuine backgroud information.
Overall one can say that violence is not advocated by anyone and it harms, but special situations need special actions and if the situation was presented by the author then the statment could have been strenghthen. So the author must provide the bakdrop on which he or she is advocating the banning of these organization.
The arugement that any political organization that advocates the use of violence to acheive its goals should be prohibited is based on various assumptions which have not been properly justfied. Unless we have a clear idea of the situation the statement suffers from many drawbacks.
One of the assumption that the political organization that advocates the use of violence to acheive its goal should be prohibited. But the author does not state what are the goals, does the organization advocates voilence every time, or is it a very specific case. No two situations are same , so one has to understand under what scenario the organization is advocating violence. One of the reasons can be that the country is being attacked by some foreign country, at that time for any political organization would advocate the use of voilence for self protection. So the statement could have been made strong if the backdrop of the situation was provided.
Another assumption is that such organization is detrimental to society is a general statement that needs to be supported by some more information. Is the organization advocating violence against its own country or against some other country or it is because some terrorits or anti social elements have raised war against the country and so the organization is advocating violence. The statement could have been strengthen if the proper reasons for advocating violence was provided by the author.
The assumption that short term solutions can only lead to more serious long term problems need to be more elaborated. One reason for a short term violence can be that the country is suddenly attached by some foreign country or terrorits , in that case it is in benefit to protect oneself and to indulge in violence for self protection. For long term it is benefitial if violence is adopted for short term otherwise the country might be takenover by another country. So to strenghthen the arugment the author must mention why the short term solutions can lead to more serious long term problems if the author has a genuine backgroud information.
Overall one can say that violence is not advocated by anyone and it harms, but special situations need special actions and if the situation was presented by the author then the statment could have been strenghthen. So the author must provide the bakdrop on which he or she is advocating the banning of these organization.
