<span>he is comparing muck-rakers with people who focus on negative things.</span>
Paradox; a statement or proposition that, despite sound reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory.
Oxymoron; a figure of speech in which contradictory terms appear in conjunction.
Hope this helps :D
Answer:
Outline:
- What is freedom of expression.
- The problems of limiting that freedom.
- The need to know how to differentiate between freedom of expression and oppression and intolerance.
- Conclusion.
Explanation:
Freedom of expression is the permission of people to speak their opinions and to position themselves on other people's opinions without suffering any reprisals from anyone. Freedom of expression is a right defended by the first constitutional amendment, in addition to being a humanitarian right that must be respected by all.
Limiting or punishing freedom of expression, therefore, is a negative thing, as it limits the population of the truth, in addition to limiting rationality, questioning and the ability of human beings to think for themselves and show their thoughts. In this case, the punishment of freedom of expression is something tyrannical and should not be promoted in any case and at any time, regardless of what it is.
However, for the population to have free freedom of expression, it is necessary that first, the population knows how to differentiate what is freedom of expression and what is oppression and intolerance. This is because many people use the right to freedom of expression to offend, be prejudiced and hide the hatred of population groups. This is harmful and does not add anything good in the world.
Therefore, we can conclude that punishing freedom of expression is negative for the population, however, it is important that the population is taught about what is opinion and what is hate speech and intolerance.
The logical connection is absent. The answer lacks any explanation to the question being made. The main problem is that the interviewer is left with a very incomplete response, one that requires a lot of work from part of the interviewer. In this case in particular, even if there were a connection between reducing rates and unemployment, it seems that the candidate does not really have an answer to the question. That is why the fallacy is the lack of connection or relevance between the question and the answer
