Issue

The main idea of the issue statement is that government should focus more on major cities of the
country and give them the necessary financial support needed for their development. I disagree with
this point of view for a number of reasons, which I will elucidate upon in the following paragraphs.

Firstly, this line of thinking, is based on an extreme generalisation. We cannot assume that only
major cities are the most essential part for the development of a country.it is not necessary that the
metro cities are the hub of the traditional and cultural diversities that a country has. Every country
has a different history and a different culture. Each nation has a story of its own and therefore it is
not right to conclude that by undergirding cities only we will be able to preserve and generate our
national and cultural identities.

Taking the case of India, majority of the population, still lives in rural areas. And in reality, one can
easily visit these villages and conclude that they are the ones who are actually following the
traditions that have been passed down from generation to generation. Villages are the heart and
soul of India. People of major cities, due to their fast-moving lives, forget or ignore their cultural
traditions. The modern metropolitan youth of the urban areas, neglect their own traditions and in
order to appear suave, imitate the west. Whereas on the other hand, in the rural areas, people from
their childhood only are taught to follow and respect their traditions and it is a matter of respect and
love for them.

Also, only focussing on urban areas and giving them the financial support can prove to be
detrimental for the development of the country as a whole. This has been proved also by the history
of India. During the independence of India, in 1947, as a fledgling India had a choice, while making
the developmental plans, to follow the Russian model of Industrial and urban development or to
follow the Gandhian model of rural development. Despite, Gandhi’s advice, India chose to follow the
Russian Model, and as a result did not focus much on rural areas and agriculture. The result of that
decision can be seen today also. The villages of India have remained backward and the inequalities
are growing till date, on a very large scale. If the government then, had given equal focus to rural
areas, a different scenario may have been visible today. Development of all the areas and not only
urban areas is necessary for the growth of a Nation.

I agree, that the most skilled population of the country lives in the Urban areas, usually urban areas
have a metropolitan crowd and a mix of various traditions and cultures. Giving financial support to
urban areas will definitely have a positive effect , as the service sector and industrial sector is
usually present in the urban areas.

Thus, the argument that it is primarily major cities in which a nation’s cultural identity is preserved is
flawed, and thus the government should not only focus on the development of urban areas, but
should also give financial support to rural as well as tribal societies in some cases for the overall
development and growth of the country.
Argument

The argument states that on the basis of a study on a large number of people, it is concluded that
dairy products, that are rich in calcium and vitamin D, actually increase rather than decrease the
probability and risks of osteoporosis. This argument is flawed in a number of ways, which I will
elucidate upon in the following paragraphs.

Firstly, it is mentioned in the argument that osteoporosis is linked with “environmental and genetic
factors”. Thus , it is not right to conclude that a diet rich in dairy products will necessarily , help in
preventing the disease. For example, if a person has genetically inherited the genes, that make him
or her more prone of suffering from that disease, then no matter whatever he or she tries, even
though they take care in every way, and have diet rich in calcium and vitamin D, he or she has a high
probability of suffering from osteoporosis. Similarly, because of environmental factors, also one can
argue the same thing. In addition, we cannot judge on the opinion of “many people “, without
knowing who these people are to give their opinion, and whether they are from some medical or
scientifically profession.

Also, nothing is said about the credibility of the organisation who has carried out the research and
specific statistics are not provided. We don’t know, how long does “long term study mean”. It is
quite possible that the study has not been carried out for a sufficiently long period of time, such as
10-15 years and therefore the argument and the conclusions are not viable. Similarly, we cannot
judge how “large “is the number of people, on which the survey is done. If the people are not large
enough, then many factors and possibilities cannot be captured by the study.

Thirdly, we don’t know anything about the medical history, the age group etc about the people,
which are surveyed. It is a plausible fact that, the higher rate of bone fractures is due to the age
group. Maybe, majority subjects of the study are small children or adolescents, who have a higher
probability of falling down and getting hurt, due their innate restlessness and hyperactivity. Also, it is
possible that most of the people are genetically prone of getting this disease and thus this kind of
result is shown by the study.

Also, the main conclusion of the argument is immensely flawed. We cannot say that bone fractures
are the one and only symptom of osteoporosis. There can be many other symptoms of the disease,
and only after careful evaluation we can conclude that the subject has the given disease. In addition
to this, it is also a possibility that many other diseases have bone fractures as a symptom and thus it
is not right to conclude that, osteoporosis is the only disease that the person could have.

Finally, thus we cannot generalize that a diet rich in dairy products will increase the risks of
osteoporosis, rather than decrease the risks, because of abovementioned reasons. Only if, more
clear and specific details about the survey and the people who have been surveyed is provided, we
can conclude something substantial.