Search the Community

Some people argue that the government should give every unemployed person a mobile phone and should make sure they have access to the Internet. They believe this is the best way of using public money to reduce the problem of unemployment. To what extent do you agree or disagree? Unemployment has a long history. It is a problem which over the time has only increased instead of reducing even after being well versed with its effects. One of the main reasons for unemployment is immense growth in the rate of population year after year. Government, though trying all variety of solutions, is unable to deal with the issue successfully till date. Many believe providing unemployed with a mobile phone and internet facility can help in decreasing the rate of unemployment. Majority of the population does not have the privilege of using technology due to lack of money. This will help jobless people in finding new jobs matching their skill set and also, learn new if a job demands. In addition, via internet one can do certifications or watch videos and enhance his/her talent. Contrary to the previous statements, mobile phone and internet access can deviate many people from achieving their goal, finding a new job or doing certifications online, by being a source of wastage of time in unnecessary things. In today’s world, cell phones and internet have become a boon rather than a bliss. Instead of being of help, it can also turn as a reason for unemployment. Alternatively, the government should just provide mobile phones, appreciate small businesses and foreign investment, which will in return create job opportunities for the needy. To conclude, in my opinion, though providing mobile phones and internet services is a good suggestion but there are several other ways where public money can be used more effectively and efficiently serving the problem of unemployment. Lack of jobs is a pivotal issue and should be addressed with a full proof plan, as things are depleting day by day.

[h=4]Argument Task Prompt:[/h]The following is a petition to the city council of Centerville: "Over the past three years, there has been a marked increase in cases of 'sidewalk rage,' similar to the irrational anger drivers experience on the road, but instead among sidewalk walkers. The result is an increase in assaults, property damage, and disruptions of normal pedestrian traffic. In order to address this growing problem, the council must ban cell phone use on sidewalks. Not only do people texting or using their phones slow down pedestrian traffic, but they are also more likely to walk into the road or bump into other walkers. Children are especially vulnerable because they are too short to be easily seen. Middletown passed such a ban and not only have they heard no complaints, but the reported incidents of sidewalk crime has gone down significantly." The argument to initiate a ban on mobile phones, for pedestrian, is based on numerous assumptions. Not only the council ought to ban mobile phone usage with no hard evidence, also there isn't any valid source mentioned from where the following figures have been accumulated. The idea of the problems faced by children, to not being visible to pedestrian is unnecessary related to the usage of mobile phones. The assumption is that children walks in a firm manner as like a adult. Another problem associated is that the children are tend not be seen because of their height, this is a fallacious argument. The author doesn't feel the need to give us a figure of about how many children usually walk on the sidewalks. Bumping into a child, is that a 1 case in week or it;s a daily situation. Another argument claiming, ban on mobile phones in the Middletown doesn't provide enough evidence, it assumes the complaints were touching sky before. The author rather provides an obscure anecdote, that the complainants are null after the ban. The assumption is that ban on mobile phones, irrelevant of what was the figures before the ban or it's just the same case. Author provides another anecdote of about how the reports of sidewalks crime are significantly decreased. The assumptions are that earlier the pedestrian traffic was humongous and couldn't be controlled. The author heightens the need to ban without some factual data. Anecdotal evidence is provided to the reader that just the ban was sufficient to control this variable, however it could have been due to police support. Also, the other possible variables are ignored and assumed these arguments would be sufficient. The urge to ban mobile phones for pedestrians, through this precis is filled with assumptions and anecdotal evidence. Another variables should also be considered to examine its effects on the situation.