Grewal

Statistics gathered over the past three decades show that the death rate is higher among those who do not have jobs than among those with regular employment. Unemployment, just like heart disease and cancer, is a significant health issue. While many health care advocates promote increased government funding for medical research and public health care, it would be folly to increase government spending if doing so were to affect the nation's economy adversely and ultimately cause a rise in unemployment. A healthy economy means healthy citizens. The argument suggests that the government should not increase government spending as it might affect the nation’s economy, causing a rise in unemployment to the detriment of people’s health. There are many flaws in the argument: some of them being analogous, statistical and causal. This essay will examine the assumptions on which the argument is built, prove that these are wrong and thereby illustrate that the argument’s implications are misleading. The text mentions that the statistics have been gathered over the past three decades and show that death rate is higher among the unemployed than those with regular employment without giving details of the data sample. It fails to mention the age range of the survey participants, their background, whether it is rural or urban, and most importantly their number. It may be possible that the sample range is small, rendering the study unfeasible; or that most participants are too old; or that a majority of the participants are from villages, where it is possible that they don’t have access to good healthcare. Without these details, we cannot come to any conclusion, leave alone one that is so strong and bleak. Moreover, the argument says that because death rate is higher among the unemployed than those with regular employment, those who will become unemployed as a result of the nation’s economy deteriorating will die soon. This seems like a causal flaw. Just because death rate among the unemployed is higher doesn’t mean that those who become unemployed will die. With this assumption proving to be wrong, the argument falls apart. The argument also says that unemployment is a significant health issue, just like cancer and heart disease, without saying anything to justify this claim. This is an analogous flaw. The argument doesn’t give any data to reach such a strong conclusion. Without knowing the comparable statistics, how are we to be sure that unemployment is as serious a disease as heart ailment and cancer. With the several flaws in the argument being pointed out, it is clear that the government doesn’t need to cut back on spending in the fear that it will affect the nation’s economy and eventually harm its citizens due to increase in unemployment. Without accurate statistics and enough information that justifies the argument’s conclusions, we can dismiss the argument as flawed.

"If rituals did not exist, we would have to invent them. We need ceremonies and rituals to help us define ourselves socially and culturally." The topic suggests that humankind needs ceremonies and rituals to help define themselves socially and culturally. Now this may be true to a certain extent, but most rituals, I believe, are a burden on society, considering the monoply reiligious organizations have over them. We can easily organize functions as per our wish and not be worried about offending someone. It is not a tough task to organize an event, be it religious or social, as per our liking. In order to bring some structure to the event, we can simply plan ahead and hold certain functions that may appeal to those participating in it; we can play it by ear. And before you know it, the structure of functions done well, whether a house party or a welcome event, may soon become rigid, turning into a ritual. This happens when we try to repeat past successes and follow old practices to the T. This has been the case with religious practices. For instance, the rituals which had some meaning and served a distinct purpose hundreds of years ago, are still mindlessly repeated. And if somebody dares breaking with the ancient practices, there is a furore! The guardians of religion, especially in Sikhism, Hinduism or Islam, are inflicting the greatest harm to it; these regressive, uneducated men follow old customs without putting any thought into them. If at all, we need rituals and ceremonies, they should change with the times. For instance, earlier, the Sikh grooms would carry a sword while going to the bride’s house during the wedding so he can protect her on their way back because in those days, crime was rife and dacoits would often attack a wedding procession, rob the bride before kidnapping and eventually raping her. However, in today’s time when crime is low and processions go on motorised vehicles, there is no need for the groom to carry the weapon. It may be true that rituals give one a sense of connection with history and provide structure to ceremonies. But we don’t necessarily need them. These should not be compulsory. Therefore, there is no need for rituals; one can always be one with one’s roots by establishing their own rituals.