gre writing issue sample writing 79

1. Claim: The best test of an argument is its ability to convince someone with an opposing viewpoint. Reason: Only by being forced to defend an idea against the doubts and contrasting views of others does one really discover the value of that idea.

Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which that claim is based.

Stating that the best test of an argument is its ability to convince someone who has an opposing viewpoint, the speaker asserts that truly meaningful idea should be immune to any kind of criticisms against it. In some sense, it is undeniable that the value of an idea or a theory can be measured by its ability to endure doubts and counterevidence. From my standpoint, however, this view seems somewhat rigid and simplistic; in fact, it ignores several important criteria under which even a seemingly questionable and crude idea should find its own values.
Of course, few would disagree that any solid argument should be based on convincing foundations and realistic grounds, so that it can effectively defend itself against a variety of doubts and challenges from the well-informed public. Especially, in the world of modern science, it has become an inalienable norm for a newly proposed thesis to minimize errors, and be exposed to diverse counterarguments. Without this procedure, a scientific theory might be no more than a religious dogma against which modern science has founded its own identity. And, even an idea of our daily lives is required to minimize its flaws in order to be regarded as meaningful and persuasive.
Nevertheless, this does not necessarily mean that this strict standard should always be applied to all types of ideas when their value, internal or external, is judged. Consider an opinion of a child. In many cases, the opinion would lack solid scientific backgrounds. Then, should we snub the child’s idea as simplistic and illogical? Definitely no. Though it might fail to satisfy all basic criteria for a logical, scientific opinion, it has great value enough to excuse its logical flaws simply because it is the first step of its long-term sophistication and self-adjustment.
Moreover, the notion that any significant idea should be strong enough to defend itself from any doubts sounds problematic in that it overlooks the bridging function of many innately flawed but ultimately productive scientific theories. For example, the Schroedinger’s equation of hydrogen’s physical properties, from my perspective, has a lasting value even though the original equation has been criticized for its lack of mathematical precision and exclusion of more complicated physical principles such as quantum mechanics or magnetic perturbations. Ironically, the value of the equation comes not from its perfection (infallibility of the theory, thus immunity from any doubts or criticisms) but from its ability to incur those productive criticisms, criticisms that have promoted our understanding of the world of hydrogen. ----------------------

People would say that the true value of an idea is best measured by its ability to withstand various doubts and disputes. In some sense, it is undeniable that the wholesomeness of an argument can be discovered by its immunity against harsh criticisms. However, in my view, the value of an idea has little to do with suspicion from different perspectives. Even, in many cases, the gist of an argument might be inadequately underestimated or distorted by our modern culture of cynicism.
In general, few would disagree that debates help us to find out the actual value of an idea. Especially in the process of scientific endeavor, continuous criticisms equipped with counterevidence and conflicting data help the community of science to overcome the flaws and limitations of the widely accepted concepts and popular theories. Without the forum for scientists, we may not only consider erroneous speculations of yesterday as having absolute values, but also be misguided by false convictions. This simple example may support the merit of criticism and skepticism to some degree.
In the different realms of human endeavor, however, being forced to defend one idea against doubts from opponents seems hardly to have significant relation with discovery of real value of the idea. In modern politics where an intense ideological conflict is a constant, debates seem to continuously fail to generate any meaningful evaluation of a proposed policy idea. Can you provide any example in which ideologically biased democrats adequately respect a policy idea from the Republicans? Or, is there any laudable episode along with which Obama’s policies for reform were improved by the quibbles from extremists? For some time now, thus, I think the true value of an idea has little to do with doubts and suspicions.
Furthermore, more plausible wisdom seems to be one that debates, instead of serving as tools for objective indicators of the value of an idea, can debase the merits of it. In terms of supplementation of a novel idea, the processes of long discussion tend to force the creator of the idea to compromise with the pressure from the average ideas among the majority. Thus, it is well known that Steve Jobs hated the possibility that his innovative idea could be discussed by a panel of so-called specialists in that, however scientific their advices might be, their narrow scopes might rob the vigor of the rough but compelling new idea. In short, rather than assessing the true value, criticisms may lead to the surrender of many idiosyncratic visions to the tyranny of the average minds. ---
The given statement claims that the true value of an idea depends on its ability to pass through the various doubts from contrasting points of views. In some sense, it is undeniable that the validity or adequacy of an idea can be assessed by its integrity which cannot be marred by any criticism. However, this view underestimates the various paths through which a new idea produces its value.
Of course, few would disagree that soundness of a theory after the relentless attacks from opposing views is one of important criteria to evaluate the validity of the theory. Especially, in the modern science, it is commonsensical that a theory should eliminate every type of criticism in order to gain a minimum validity. Any biological thought that cannot withstand the questions from opposing scientists may not be called valuable. Any economic theory should eliminate its errors and limitations in order to be practical and authoritative. This says that immunity to doubts is one of important indicators of the power of an idea.
However, this does not necessarily mean that the value of certain idea comes only from its scientific soundness. With regard to some philosophical thoughts or political ideals, it is not the ability to withstand meticulous examinations about its scientific and logical soundness that gives them any value; rather, in this case, the true value of an idea lies mainly in its inspirational power to improve the world. Who could dare to consider as obsolete the ideals of sexual equity between genders or eradication of racialism? Though these ideas are rarely able to verify their own scientific soundness, we cannot deny the value of them.
Similarly, most thoughts from artists whose primary foci are not to confirm the scientific validity tend to have great values even when they are usually exposed to and even be ridiculed by different perspectives. In fact, the true value of many novelists’ and artists’ ideologies comes not from their ability to convince their critics but from their ability to present new ways of thinking.
In addition,