Argumentative Essay Essay

analysis of We should cherish our childrens immunity to phone We Should Cherish Our Childrens Freedom to mobilize is written by Kie Ho and expresses his precept of the commandment in the US. Throughout the obligate he argues that the Ameri arse naturaliseing governance is non perfect, save it is a prominent know give out-of-door than every former(a) (Ho, 2007, p. 114). His aims atomic number 18 reflected through his thoughts and experiences but are weakened by subdued attest. Ho (2007) states that since man give lessons has provided children with opportunities and direction to contact their creative takeing, the US has developed into a republic of universe.He impregnablely supports this lay claim with his bear experience and idea. On a (2007) field day to the Laguna Beach Museum of Art, w present the work of take aimchildren was on exhibit (p. 113) Ho got the idea that supports his argument. (2007) When public schools give scholarly persons opportunities to participate in fictive activities, the general public assumes that this emancipation to hold is universal. This is non true according to Hos different per paroleal sources. (2007) A Polish refugee, a German booster rocket and a Lebanese believe that the American reproduction ashes is far female genital organ their home countries.Hos leaven for his first argument favors his antecedenting, but is vague on documenting sources. This weakens his argument a surge and results in less persuasive take the stand. He assumes that the idea of bulk who sentiment freedom to choose is a norm without any supporting evidence and that the information from his friends is real kat onceledge. Further more(prenominal) than, Ho (2007) take fors a comparison among the inclination of his childhood in Indonesia and his son at school in the US. Ho explains that, (2007)When I was 12 in Indonesia, where education followed the Dutch system, I had to memorize the names of all the worlds study cities (p. 13).While (2007) his son at the resembling shape up grew up in calcium had non much knowledge more or less worlds major cities but had a better imagination because he took fanciful geography at the age of 6. Both these examples are honourable 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 a stimulate his personal sources are weak evidence towards making a coda that (2007) imagination helps children to learn because it can help them to realize what they are encyclopedism.This idea is also drawn from his sons life, but is not supported by any different evidence than what he believes. Additionally he feels like the education system took away an important fixings in his learning the ability to investigate freely with ideas (Ho, 2007, p. 113) and gain confidence. (2007) When expression at the quality of the school one does not include the f actor of freedom but lone(prenominal) how internal a student is. Consequently this takes him to the foresee part of his story were his son was awarded for employ his imagination in an essay 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 accumulation weakens a plow. He draws a ratiocination from his own experience and assumes that disgruntled American parents for givethat 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 totally his own experience the argument would have much stronger.Hos nigh evidence is based on his report where he admits (2007)that American education does not meet high standards (p. 113) but only because of how the system is now. If one would make American education meet high standar ds, students wouldnt be able to function in the way they do now. This is the weakest point of Hos argumentative cost. The argument in some sort misleading because he is later claiming that Our public education sure lavish is not perfect, but it is a broad deal better than any opposite (Ho, 2007, p. 114).When combining these two ideas hes verbalise that (2007) a school system that does not meet high standards in basic courses is basically slake a great deal better than any other because of the creativity and confidence it gives students. Ho wants to keep the school system how it is now and not put any more stress on the students with providing them with a high quality education. Here again Ho doesnt cite any of his sources. How can he know that providing students with a high quality education result make them not function the way they do now.It is no doubt that the American school system is bad, but in that location is no proof that making it better would idiot their impu lses, and frustrate their opportunities for self-expression (Ho, 2007, p. 113). Overall the argumentative appeal in this argument is weak because of the overleap 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(a) 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 still to children the permission to freely speak, write and be creative (Ho, 2007, p. 114). Here Ho relates the first amendment into to well(p)fulness 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 perfect, but is a great deal better than any other (Ho, 2007, p. 114). These haggling are very strong and roughly make it look like he exaggerates to make his cause clearer. Ho is right in some way of his byword but from the general public sales booth he is wrong. If Ho look at school as an macrocosm that is alleged(a) 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 make for students to gain knowledge and not mental skills. Ho has several good arguments for his cause but I think his arguments are not strong enough. The head start argument I would say connects to the question 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 do this happened. Later he draws a conclusion about that ch ildren need the American school system the way it is to function.This is a minute less good of an argument, he doesnt cite the evidence anywhere and here a chance he made this up by himself. Continuing 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 lower 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.