Argumentative Essay Essay

Analysis of We should cherish our childrens immunity to think We Should treat Our Childrens Freedom to Think is written by Kie Ho and expresses his opinion of the developmental activity in the US. Throughout the article he argues that the Ameri coffin nail initiate transcription is not perfect, yet it is a great big money mend than both separate (Ho, 2007, p. 114). His lines ar reflected through his thoughts and experiences but atomic number 18 shortened by un contendn evidence. Ho (2007) states that since reality groom has provided children with opportunities and direction to conform to their creativity, the US has developed into a country of renewing.He strongly supports this birdcall with his own experience and idea. On a (2007)excursion to the Laguna bound Museum of Art, w here(predicate) the work of schoolchildren was on exhibit (p. 113) Ho got the idea that supports his cause. (2007) When world schools yield educatees opportunities to participate in cr eative activities, the general public assumes that this immunity to pack is universal. This is not true according to Hos different in the flesh(predicate) sources. (2007) A Polish refugee, a German friend and a Lebanese believe that the American education arrangement is far behind their home base countries.Hos evidence for his first argument favors his rea newsing, but is vague on documenting sources. This debileens his argument a lot and results in less(prenominal) telling evidence. He assumes that the idea of people who view freedom to choose is a norm without any bread and butter evidence and that the information from his friends is trustworthy knowledge. Further more than, Ho (2007) illuminates a compari parole between the visual sensation of his childhood in Ind acesia and his countersign at school in the US. Ho explains that, (2007)When I was 12 in In makesia, where education followed the Dutch system, I had to memorize the names of all the introductions major cit ies (p. 13).While (2007) his son at the same come on grew up in California had not much knowledge close to worlds major cities but had a break away imagination because he took creative geography at the age of 6. Both these examples are good strong arguments and support his belief that the American school system has given children a better imagination by introducing creative thinking in class. But then once again his personal sources are weak evidence towards making a conclusion that (2007) imagination helps children to learn because it can help them to visualize what they are learning.This idea is also drawn from his sons life, but is not supported by any new(prenominal) evidence than what he believes. Additionally he feels like the education system took away an burning(prenominal) factor in his learning the ability to taste freely with ideas (Ho, 2007, p. 113) and gain confidence. (2007) When smell at the quality of the school one does not include the factor of freedom but only how cozy a student is. Consequently this takes him to the counter part of his story were his son was awarded for using his imagination in an es swear at school.The evidence strengthens Hos argument of that the school system gives a student freedom to choose and gain more confidence when awarded for trying new ways. When looking at the quality of his sources the argumentative appeal weakens a lot. He draws a conclusion from his own experience and assumes that disgruntled American parents forgetthat their children are able to experiment freely with ideas (Ho, 2007, p. 113). If he would have had a supporting source to this claim, rather than only his own experience the argument would al-Qaida much stronger.Hos next evidence is based on his statement where he admits (2007)that American education does not meet heights standards (p. 113) but only because of how the system is now. If one would make American education meet towering standards, students wouldnt be able to function in the way they do now. This is the weakest point of Hos argumentative appeal. The argument in rough sort misleading because he is later claiming that Our public education for sure is not perfect, but it is a great skunk better than any other (Ho, 2007, p. 114).When combining these two ideas hes manifestation that (2007) a school system that does not meet high standards in basic courses is basically still a great deal better than any other because of the creativity and confidence it gives students. Ho wants to restrict the school system how it is now and not put any more stress on the students with providing them with a higher quality education. Here again Ho doesnt cite any of his sources. How can he know that providing students with a higher quality education will make them not function the way they do now.It is no doubt that the American school system is bad, but there is no proof that making it better would retard their impulses, and frustrate their opportunities for self-exp ression (Ho, 2007, p. 113). Overall the argumentative appeal in this argument is weak because of the lack of sources and misleading evidence but leads you in some way towards his overall belief. Finally, Ho argues that (2007) critics of American education do not understand the real purpose of the education.In all studies that are done on education the only measurement that has been left out is freedom. He explains that its omitted because people have never had freedom in education and therefor never seen the positive effects. To clarify this he applies this to that the importance of freedom in education extends even to children the license to freely enunciate, write and be creative (Ho, 2007, p. 114). Here Ho relates the first amendment into to rightly to freely speak or write. This makes a lot stronger evidence for his argument.But on the other side he still doesnt cite any of his sources and in particular the last sentence were he writes Our public education certainly is not per fect, but is a great deal better than any other (Ho, 2007, p. 114). These words are very strong and almost make it look like he exaggerates to make his cause clearer. Ho is right in some way of his saying but from the general public viewpoint he is wrong. If Ho look at school as an conception that is supposed to teach students to experiment with ideas and fulfill their creativity he is absolutely right. However this is not the real purpose of school.School is an institution made for students to gain knowledge and not mental skills. Ho has several(prenominal) good arguments for his cause but I think his arguments are not strong enough. The starting argument I would say connects to the topic well, but is not very strong. The reason the US is a country of innovation is not only because of the school system, there is other more important factors that made this happened. Later he draws a conclusion about that children guide the American school system the way it is to function.This is a little less good of an argument, he doesnt cite the evidence anywhere and here a chance he made this up by himself. chronic on, he claims that increasing the quality of the school will retard students impulses. This claim is also vague. There is no evidence of this happening, and he doesnt say that it has even been tried. At last he finishes of saying that American education is good enough the way it is now. I would say I disagree with him at this point. American education does provide a lot of freedom in education, but this generates a lot take down level of knowledge and therefor goes against what education really is about, to learn as much as possible and get a broader perspective of the world.