1. Rock is dead
2. Rock is dead and there is nothing more to add to it
3. A lot of rock legends already added everything they could to the genre.
4. Adding anything to the rock genre is almost entirely impossible. If anything is added to it then it has most likely been done before.
5. Since nothing can be added anymore, rock is entirely dead.
6. A lot of the rock legends that have come and gone have already added to rock as a whole, so almost everything has been done. Nothing can be added anymore otherwise it is just being repeated. So rock is genuinely dead.
Updated Hypothesis
During the “golden era” of rock, artists used their music as a vehicle for rebellion and social reform, whereas rock now lacks in those categories with fewer artists using their platforms for societal reformation and change.
The Gamer 2.0
SleepyCat
Coffee Lover 03
doglover7025
Snowman10
excellentstudent27
Gymrat
hockeyfan
holistic25
ilovebeesss
ilovemydog
The Gamer
Naturechild101
BreakingBad45
ravensfan8
temporal111
thatpersonoverthere
toetio
username1132005
Calm&Patient
webbwrestler135
Counterintuitive Spring 2024 
Could I also get feedback on my hypothesis? I updated it as well.
LikeLike
It’s just enough to guide some early reading, ILoveMyDog, but nowhere near specific enough to function as a true Hypothesis. So much about it is squishy. We could debate it between us for an hour AND THEN discover we were in disagreement about what we individually considered to be rock. Your other terms are just as vague. “Too much has been done,” “new ideas,” and “subgenres” are all debatable. You don’t need to return to this page to update your Hypothesis, but as soon as you start to narrow the boundaries of your argument, you can revise the Proposal section of your Bibliography post.
LikeLike