To understand the most important characteristics of a society, one must study its major cities.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.
a nice concise feedback would be appreciated
The argument that undersrtanding the most important characteristics of a society is done by concentrating research on it major cities is short-sighted. While it seems logical to focus on major cities since they have the highest population, such apraoch reduces the entire society into those cities ignoring other smaller cities, rural areas, and towns. I argue against such aproach because it marginalizes other areas in favor of major cities. There are two crucial arguemtns against this approach. First, the assumption that concentrated cities are reflective of a society is incorrect. Hence, whenever research is done on major cities, any conclusions made only reflect those cities, which will ignore all the other variables at play to fully understand a society. Third, if a study is made to improve the socioeconomic status of the citizens, any improvements will only benefit those in the major cities, which may not be so for other smaller cities.
First, the concentration of people in a major city is not a valid argument to conclude the city's reflection of a society. Let's assume a country where 30 percent of its citizens are concentrated in a major city, and the rest of the 70 percent are scattered in rural areas and small towns. Let's say the country wants to conduct a study on citizen's accecibility to minimum services such as education and health care. If the country focuses on the major city with only 30 percent of the population, it ignores the majority of the population, which will make the study flawed and misguided.
continueing on my previous point, let's say the same study in an urban major city is intended to reach for solutions in case the study shows hard accesibility to citizens to minimum services. Solutions maybe building more schools or hospitals or establishing free public tranportation. However, these solutions are not necesarrily effective for rural areas where its citizens may have environmental concerns over establishing more public transportation.
Such approach indicates that only the needs of those who live in major cities are adressed, and the others are discrimiated, which which raises equality isssues. Both citizens in major cities and other areas contribute to the society through civil participation. therefore, they should be equally represented regardless of the geograpohic location.
In conclusion, studying Major cities only gives a glimpse on a society, but never truly represent it.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.
a nice concise feedback would be appreciated
The argument that undersrtanding the most important characteristics of a society is done by concentrating research on it major cities is short-sighted. While it seems logical to focus on major cities since they have the highest population, such apraoch reduces the entire society into those cities ignoring other smaller cities, rural areas, and towns. I argue against such aproach because it marginalizes other areas in favor of major cities. There are two crucial arguemtns against this approach. First, the assumption that concentrated cities are reflective of a society is incorrect. Hence, whenever research is done on major cities, any conclusions made only reflect those cities, which will ignore all the other variables at play to fully understand a society. Third, if a study is made to improve the socioeconomic status of the citizens, any improvements will only benefit those in the major cities, which may not be so for other smaller cities.
First, the concentration of people in a major city is not a valid argument to conclude the city's reflection of a society. Let's assume a country where 30 percent of its citizens are concentrated in a major city, and the rest of the 70 percent are scattered in rural areas and small towns. Let's say the country wants to conduct a study on citizen's accecibility to minimum services such as education and health care. If the country focuses on the major city with only 30 percent of the population, it ignores the majority of the population, which will make the study flawed and misguided.
continueing on my previous point, let's say the same study in an urban major city is intended to reach for solutions in case the study shows hard accesibility to citizens to minimum services. Solutions maybe building more schools or hospitals or establishing free public tranportation. However, these solutions are not necesarrily effective for rural areas where its citizens may have environmental concerns over establishing more public transportation.
Such approach indicates that only the needs of those who live in major cities are adressed, and the others are discrimiated, which which raises equality isssues. Both citizens in major cities and other areas contribute to the society through civil participation. therefore, they should be equally represented regardless of the geograpohic location.
In conclusion, studying Major cities only gives a glimpse on a society, but never truly represent it.
