Essay question: When, if ever, does general societal pressure undermine consent?

Essay question: When, if ever, does general societal pressure undermine consent?
I was adivsed to use Dougherty’s paper to argue and answer the question and say how his argument is wrong. Also make sure to include Mollie Gerver’s view on this (make sure to use week 4 slides on this). Make sure to definitely include both the essential readings that I have added. For overall instructions and guidelines use Week 11 slides. I will add more useful readings later. Here is one good structure for your essays, though I will suggest others in the lectures:
1. In the introduction (1 paragraph) present the general thesis you want to defend. A thesis is just a very concise general answer which you will then defend in the rest of the essay. For example, if an essay question is “Do surprise parties violate property rights because people haven’t given valid consent to you throwing them a party in their homes?” then thesis can be “Surprise parties always violate property rights” or “Surprise parties violate property rights when the person would not have consented to the party had they know ahead of time” Or “Surprise parties violate property rights when the person does not retroactively endorse having been subject to a surprise party.” This introduction should also present the general structure of your essay, which is typically 1-2 arguments in defence of your thesis, followed by a potential objection and then response (more on that next). 2. In the rest of the essay, you should present reasons that the thesis is correct. One good way to do this is to present one or two core arguments in support of your thesis. An argument often requires defending a general principle, and then showing why the principle implies that your thesis is correct. For example, if you were to defend the thesis “Surprise parties always violate property rights” you could first defend the principle of property rights, and the principle that such rights are always violated whenever entering a person’s house without their explicit and prior consent. This defence of a general principle needn’t (and perhaps shouldn’t) directly address the topic of the surprise party, but just defend the principle in general in 1-3 paragraphs. You then show that this principle is clearly violated if someone throws a surprise party, and therefore surprise parties violate property rights. This should take another 1-3 paragraphs. 3. After presenting one or two arguments in support of your thesis, a good essay will present 2-3 potential objections to one or both of your arguments. A good idea is to devote 1-3 paragraphs explaining each objection, followed by 1-3 paragraphs of your response. For example, if your core argument is that property rights should always be respected, and this requires a person’s consent before entering their property, the objection could be that a person does give consent to you entering their house if they give “hypothetical consent”: they would have consented to you entering had you asked them beforehand. 4. Finally, the essay should explain why the objection fails, and so your thesis stands. For example, you might respond to the objection above by arguing that giving hypothetical consent is not enough: a person must actually give consent before entering their home is morally permissible. You could also present two responses to your objection, rather than one: For example, you could defend the claim that a person must give actual consent rather than just hypothetical consent and, even if that’s not true, surprise parties don’t even involve hypothetical consent, because most people would not have consented to a surprise party if you asked them ahead of time! This part of the essay could be 2-3 paragraphs, but there are no strict rules. The goal is to ensure you truly respond to the objection.