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.
BEGIN ESSAY
"Without new ideas, any society will stagnate." This is a core concept that is tempting to accept. However, the evidence provided in the remainder of the statement does little to encourage a critical reader to do so. The author fails to acknowledge situations where new ideas were born from unlikely situations. The author also uses enticing yet vague terminology to support the conclusion.
"New ideas can ONLY be introduced in a society that permits freedom of expression." If this were true, the world would be quite a different place. Each of the prominent societal revolutions in history was born in a situation where freedom of expression was discouraged or even illegal. The "introduction" of these revolutions (a term which is certainly synonymous with "new ideas") was admittedly difficult. However, these radical events prospered to the point of changing human history.
"Therefore, if a society is to thrive, all limits on freedom of expression should be eliminated." Let's examine the author's use of the word "thrive". The word is cerebrally positive. But, what does it mean? Must a society create new technological ideas, turn them into sellable products, and then grow its economy in order to "thrive"? Must a society's population or standard of living increase in order to "thrive"? Simply put, more information is required in order to make this a sound, agreeable concept. Secondly, will removing "all limits on freedom of expression" really cause a society to thrive? We do not have ultimate freedom of expression in the United States, the federal government imposes limitations on how information is communicated over the internet and television, for example. Nonetheless, most of the world acknowledges that our society is thriving.
As stated, the core concept proposed by the author is, on the surface, something everyone wants to support. It would be easier to accept the concept if the author could provide more exact context. Providing an explanation of what it means for a society to "thrive" would be a start. While the author is addressing context, in certain areas it should be narrowed. If "all limits" were changed to "most limits", then it is easier to accept what the author is proposing. Lastly, the assertion that "new ideas can only be introduced in a society that permits freedom of expression" is easily exemplified as false. The author should revisit or delete this statement altogether.
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.
BEGIN ESSAY
"Without new ideas, any society will stagnate." This is a core concept that is tempting to accept. However, the evidence provided in the remainder of the statement does little to encourage a critical reader to do so. The author fails to acknowledge situations where new ideas were born from unlikely situations. The author also uses enticing yet vague terminology to support the conclusion.
"New ideas can ONLY be introduced in a society that permits freedom of expression." If this were true, the world would be quite a different place. Each of the prominent societal revolutions in history was born in a situation where freedom of expression was discouraged or even illegal. The "introduction" of these revolutions (a term which is certainly synonymous with "new ideas") was admittedly difficult. However, these radical events prospered to the point of changing human history.
"Therefore, if a society is to thrive, all limits on freedom of expression should be eliminated." Let's examine the author's use of the word "thrive". The word is cerebrally positive. But, what does it mean? Must a society create new technological ideas, turn them into sellable products, and then grow its economy in order to "thrive"? Must a society's population or standard of living increase in order to "thrive"? Simply put, more information is required in order to make this a sound, agreeable concept. Secondly, will removing "all limits on freedom of expression" really cause a society to thrive? We do not have ultimate freedom of expression in the United States, the federal government imposes limitations on how information is communicated over the internet and television, for example. Nonetheless, most of the world acknowledges that our society is thriving.
As stated, the core concept proposed by the author is, on the surface, something everyone wants to support. It would be easier to accept the concept if the author could provide more exact context. Providing an explanation of what it means for a society to "thrive" would be a start. While the author is addressing context, in certain areas it should be narrowed. If "all limits" were changed to "most limits", then it is easier to accept what the author is proposing. Lastly, the assertion that "new ideas can only be introduced in a society that permits freedom of expression" is easily exemplified as false. The author should revisit or delete this statement altogether.
