Guys please review this argument :)

[GmatRup]

Prompt: ”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.”

Me response :-


The argument here is should political organizations that advocate the use of violence to achieve its goals be prohibited from operating within our nation. Author has stated above that these groups should be prohibited from operating because they are detrimental to society. There are many flaws in Authors argument and hence I am not in consent with Authors statements.

There can be scenarios in which violence is the only option. What if some terrorist’s activities are being planned? What if some country attacks? Sometimes violence is needed to curb the worst and to protect out own nation. I truly agree that peace is needed for cultivating a harmonious society but some times violence is the only solution. Letting things happen will not only worsen the situation but may also encourage such terrorists.

Also it depends on to achieve what goals violence is needed. Author has totally given a broader view. There can be situations where in we need to take action violently. Taking an example suppose in countries where terrorist activities are prevailing. Just watching the show will not free the society with such unharmonious activities. Taking violent action is sometimes the solution.

Also Author statement that groups which advocate violent activities are detrimental to society is totally ambiguous. There are no examples of how these groups are detrimental to society. Maybe these groups are taking such course of actions for they may not have any other choice and maybe this is needed for the betterment of the society. Author should have stated examples to support his claim.

Also author has further stated that taking violence steps will lead to short term solutions and also may lead to more serious long - term problems. Here also, Author has stated in a very generic manner and hence I am not in consent with the Authors statement. Suppose if a criminal has done atrocious crime and he should be hanged till death, is what society demands. Here Author will totally disagree with the judicial decision. Hence there are scenarios when violent actions are to be taken. We all want peace and sometimes people take violent actions to make a society free to violence.

Hence on concluding note I state that Author has totally given his argument in a generic manner, with no examples and his non-violence theory is very ambiguous. Violence is not an encouragement rather it’s an action taken to protect our own rights probably when no other solution has been left.

[GmatRup]

can anybody give at least some inputs///
Erin can u please reply... would be grateful

[seagull]

well, I have read your essay once. You have consistently been emphasizing on to curb the terrorism from the society, which sounded quite monotonous. You could have even appreciate authors stance to some extent. (which I think he deserve). Otherwise you got some flaws in the syntax. What I would suggest you to introduce more variety (with persuasive examples) and logical soundness.

Good effort and best wishes for your test.

[GmatRup]

Thanks a lot seagull ) .. i always thought i have to be on the opposite side.. ) can I also praise Authors statement..??? well yah i know ..it had many syntactic errors.. thanks a lot... i desperately wanted someone to read it )