Post your essay. Get expert feedback. For free.We're trying to help students improve their writing the hard way. Do you know students who want critical essay reviews from a professor of English Literature? Click like to share. Click here to sign up and post your own essay. We offer no paid services. All reviews are completely free.
In Any Situation, Progress Requires Discussion Among People Who Have Contrasting Points Of View - With A Free Essay Review
Instructions: "Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position."
Although an open minded discussion environment, which allows people with different points of views including opposing views, can broaden the overall perspective of an issue and it is possible that people with contrasting points of view can come up with breakthrough idea, I believe contrasting points of view are not always indispensable in any situation, and there are some situations in which progress does not always require opposing views, rather shared views can help the group insist on its orignal innovative point, and set a common clear goal.
In the particular situation that when the group opinion is deeply divided and there is not a clear common goal in the group, it is hard to ally all members in the group and make them work together. For example, a country is invaded by its neighbour, and people are debating what should they do. Group opinion is deeply divided. Thus, in this case, people should come together and in accord that the priority goal is the unity of the country, and then plan for effective response. In this case, overwhelming contrasting points of views can further divide the unity of the nation, which is not a good result regard of the particular situation. Progress can be made with proponent points, too.
Further, there are situations when the leader of a group holds a correct view, while the majority of the group holding contrasting points. It is universally known that the majority is not always right. In addition, overwhelming contrasting points of views can overide that right one. For example, Steve Jobs once held the different view than other decision makers in Apple. Since contrasting points of views are so overwhelming, Jobs was fired. Years later, Apple realized that Jobs was right and hired him again to be the CEO of Apple, and his foresight leads to the later success of Apple.
However, it is very important to include contrasting point of views among discussion to make progress, too. It is very common that when a dominant view exists among a group, then any other opposing views are likely to be oppressed and ignored. This can result in group norm, and perspectives of the groups can be extremely limited. Consequently, this can lead the group into a stagnant situation because there are no new, innovative views to freshen the stream of thought, especially opposing views to break the current situation.
To sum up, I agree opposing views should be included among group discussion to make a progress. However, it is not universally true in any situation, and there are some situations that one clear common goal is needed, and ones in which a minority view should prevail, too.
Your first argument is that in a specified situation it is hard for members of a group to work together. You ought to develop that argument before providing an illustrative argument. The claim you are evaluating is that "progress requires discussion among people who have contrasting points of view." What you would seem to need to claim here, then, is that when a group has difficulty working together, it is difficult to make progress. Your example of course seems to be suggesting a bit more than that: it suggests in certain circumstances (here, the emergency of war) unity is paramount (but unity of what kind? unity of mind? unity of purpose?). The point here remains a bit vague to me. A proponent of the original claim would presumably argue (it's a good idea in these cases to try to imagine what a proponent would argue) that in a time of war, progress would best be achieved if the leader listened to the different views of advisers and was persuaded by the force of the better argument to pursue a particular course of action. I'm not sure that or why you would disagree with such a position. Likewise, I'm not sure the original claim would be defeated by your subsequent argument that "the majority is not always right." Having a discussion does not necessarily entail pursuing a course of action that the majority propose.
Your argument in favor of discussing different views in certain situations is reasonable enough, but you don't specify the kinds of situations in which this would be the appropriate way to proceed. You need to do this because your overall argument seems to be that sometimes it is appropriate to discuss contrasting views and sometimes it is not; so you need to specify when it is appropriate and when not.
P.S. I changed a period (full stop) to a comma in the first paragraph in order to make the first sentence (which was a fragment) part of a complete sentence; my doing that ended up making the paragraph one long, ungainly sentence. I would recommend that you write shorter sentences that are not so syntactically complex.
P.P.S. I am sorry to say, in response to your question in the comments below, that I do not do that. I can say that you do not always demonstrate good control of sentence structure and language use (hence my recommendation above). In the absence of demonstrating such control it would seem to be difficult to score very high on the test. Your writing is uneven in this regard; sometimes it is fine, sometimes problematic. You might find it helpful to review the rules governing punctuation and sentence structure.