architgarg05

Q- The following appeared as part of a letter to the editor of a local newspaper. "During her three years in office, Governor Riedeburg has shown herself to be a worthy leader. Since she took office, crime has decreased, the number of jobs created per year has doubled, and the number of people choosing to live in our state has increased. These trends are likely to continue if she is reelected. In addition, Ms. Riedeburg has promised to take steps to keep big companies here, thereby providing jobs for any new residents. Anyone who looks at Ms. Riedeburg's record can tell that she is the best-qualified candidate for governor." A- The author of the argument concludes that Governor Riedeburg is the most apt for the post of the governor and that she should be reelected. In drawing this conclusion , the author cites as evidence the decrease in crime rate , doubling of the jobs created per year and the increase in the number of people choosing to live in the state. Moreover , the author states that the governor has promised to keep the big companies in town so that more job opportunities can be provided to the residents. The argument of the author looks convincing at first blush , though , on careful scrutiny some intricate flaws are seen. Firstly , the author assumes that the decrease in crime rate , doubling of jobs created per year is attributed to the three years governor Riedeburg was in office. Perhaps the foundations of these were created when the previous governor was in office. Also even if the crime rate has decreased we do not know substantially by how much percent has it decreased or if the jobs have doubled per year what was the initial number of jobs provided when she came in the office. Without considering these situations the author fails to convince me that the Governor Reideburg has shown herself to be a worthy leader. Secondly, the author cites that the number of people choosing to live in the state have increased. Perhaps it may be that this increase is not a significant one. It might be that the people preferring to live in the state are for various other reasons. We do not also know what age group of people are choosing to live in the state. It may be that old people are preferring to live in the state due to the serenity of the town or the weather conditions are playing a major role which may not be attributed to the governor. Thirdly, the author suggests that these trends are going to continue while no evidence supporting this have been provided. Also the author claims that Ms Reideburg has promised to keep the big companies in town so that they provide jobs for any new residents. The author unfairly assumes that providing a job means providing job satisfaction . Perhaps the jobs provided by these companies may be menial to the citizens of the town or might not fulfill their expectations. Also the author fails to consider any other candidate that is worthy of the position and may be much better suited for the governor’s post. Failing to take all these considerations into account the argument is incogitant. In conclusion , I would like to say that the argument is unwarranted and evidence provided has been backed up by lack of substantive data. The argument could be strengthened if a statistical representation of the decrease in crimes , increase in jobs per year , the increasing number of people choosing to live in the state our provided. Were this the case , the argument would stand justified. As of now , however , it stands flawed. Thanks in advance ... carefully scrutinized comments are appreciated :)

guys plz rate this issue .... plz help ... thanks !!!

Question - Some people believe that the government should impose a preferred way of life on its people , others believe that the government should leave its citizens free to choose their own value & ends. Answer - The issue whether the government should impose a preferred way of life on its people is a contentious one . I would like to say that i agree with the author only insofar as that the government has a right & it should impose certain laws on its people for their betterment. Nevertheless , nobody has a right to impede anybody's freedom & impose anything on anyone without their wish. Firstly , I would like to contend that in a democratic government is we the people who elect a government. We elect certain leaders as are representatives only so that our viewpoint & opinions are represented on a national level. The basic aim of a government is to provide the basic necessities of life like food , water & shelter to people. Furthermore , it has a responsibility to take care of health , education , security , law & order and public welfare. But , saying this does not mean that the government has got a right to impose its wish on people. Secondly , Who will check how the people in the government live their lives ? What is the difference between a tyrannical rule , laden with oppression from a despot , and a democratic government ? We have some fundamental question before us which help us contend the speaker's claim. History has seen examples of Hitler & Mussolini , or in the recent past Saddam Hussain who tried to govern people through a autocratic rule & according to their personal wishes . The end result was their utter failure which led to their downfall. Moreover , the government term itself means " by the people , of the people & for the people " . The government can no doubt impose certain restrictions in the form of law to maintain order in the state so that freedom of one person may not infringe the other person's freedom. But , nothing more than that. Thirdly , We see that in some cases of warlike conditions or economic crisis a country's government might take steps which might seem as if they impose a preferred way of life , but that also is for a fleeting period of time. Consider the recent tragedy in Japan , the nuclear mishap which took place raised concern all over the world. The government of Japan took some decisions which they felt were for the welfare of people. The country's security was at stake , lakhs of lives were affected , infact generations to come will bear effect caused by the nuclear radiations , fishing industry took a blow and the economy went through a lull. At these times , people must also , to some extent , cooperate with the government. In conclusion , I would like to say that the proposition of imposing a certain lifestyle on people by the government would be a hyperbole. I believe that each human has some basic rights of thinking & choosing what he feels is best for him , that can't be taken away from people. On the contrary , certain extraordinary situations of calamity or warlike conditions may permit for a fleeting moment of time that the will of the government prevails.