He uses no evidence, his essay is based only on his own opinion, and he does not view the opposition's opinion or their motivation. He writes well, and the points he makes are clear, but his methods and evidence are simply lacking. He is certainly welcome to his opinion, but it does not seem based in reality. Condorcet does not write about the revolution directly, but it is clear he supports the values that the revolutionaries were fighting for, and he mentions several of them, including education, and less distinction between the rich and poor. He does not cite any evidence or analysis either; he is simply expressing his opinion, just as Burke did. He is a good writer too, and gets his points across well, but somehow, his arguments seem more balanced than Burke's, perhaps because they seem more reasonable. After understanding what the French Revolutionaries were trying to accomplish, it seems that Burke was far off base. His inability to correctly understand the situation and what was actually happening in France is almost laughable today. He seems to be clinging to a traditional form of government almost in fear of anything new or different, and he actually makes arguments for saving the government, which seems ludicrous today. I would really like to know what his reaction was after the revolution was successful,...

Certainly, no revolution is ever painless, and there were some painful times during the French Revolution, but it was called for by a majority of society, who were tired of being persecuted by the wealthy and the government, and it resulted in positive change. Burke never looked at the opposing arguments for revolution; he just railed against the rioters and felt they were disloyal. Condorcet seems the more balanced of the writers, and his arguments seem more effective and rational. (of course, he was supporting the side that won, the "right" side.) I would have appreciated a more direct approach to some of the values the revolutionaries were fighting for, and a more direct relationship to his views about the revolution. The essay was well written and easy to follow, but it was intellectual and thoughtful, too. Both authors could have used more evidence and research in their works, and they could have looked at the opposing sides, too. Condorcet is clearly highly educated, so it would make sense that he would support greater educational opportunities to help create a better society. The revolutionaries were fighting for a better society, as their declaration of rights clearly indicates, and it seems that Condorcet was far better attuned to what was actually happening in France, while Burke was far removed and unrealistic. Of the two readings, Condorcet's is much more balanced and interesting, while Burke's is a little off center and even frightening in its misconception. I enjoyed Condorcet's, but did not enjoy Burke's nearly as much.