Undoubtedly, one' s freedom is always worth the risk of losing one' s life. Consider a person who is locked in a bare cement room with no hope of escape. This person is not really living and has nothing to lose. A flaw in the argument's reasoning is that the argument ['generalizes inappropriately from a single extreme case to a universal claim', "presumes, without providing justification, that nothing can have greater value than one's own freedom", "fails to consider that it is not always possible to rebel physically against an encroachment on one's freedom", 'fails to establish that the freedom of others is worth taking risks for']