This question is asking for your personal opinion regarding this matter. You may feel free to argue either way.
My personal opinion is that it would be good to write a response that discusses both sides of the issue. This kind of response would include a thesis statement that alerts the reader to the fact that both sides of the argument are valid but that one is better than the other. For example, the thesis statement could be something like the following: "Although the peer review process has its limitations, it is still a valuable part of the scientific process." This thesis statement will allow your paper to explore the weaknesses of the peer review process while steering the reader to believe that despite the weaknesses, peer reviews are still important.
A peer review exists to assess the validity, accuracy, and/or quality of the published results. Peer reviews don't exist to ruin a particular article. They exist to preserve the integrity of the scientific process. Peer reviews serve to make sure the science is being done (or was done) properly. If a scientist and/or a researcher knows that his or her work is going to be peer reviewed, that scientist is further motivated to follow proper procedures and produce and submit high-quality work. Peer reviews protect the scientific process by encouraging those doing the work to do it well.