Week 1, Prompt 1: "TV Is Good for You" By Joel Waldfogel (Slate)

C.A- TV is good for women living in rural India, for television helps them to get rid of traditional ideas and to know about “autonomy (whether the woman gets to make her own decisions about shopping, health, and whom she visits), attitudes toward beating (the number of circumstances in which women view beating as acceptable), and whether women prefer having male children.” (Waldfogel)  

There are numerous debates about effects of television on people’s daily life. Some people say that television is useless box that has no positive effects on people; however, others believe that it is a crucial way of learning in 21^st century. Joel Waldfogel, a writer for Slate, is an example of a person who believes that television is good, at least for the women of rural India. His main reason was that by watching television, women can get rid of some traditional ideas such as autonomy, attitudes toward beating and preference over the gender of babies. I do not agree with the statement, for these effects not all be good, fact that there was a house shows that it was not the most rural areas of India and the research done in few areas.

            First, the effect will not all be positive. Though there might be some positive effect of the television, it is not to say that television only had a positive effect. The research only focus on the positive effect, however, there will be some negative effects that they did not count. The researchers only focused on the positive effect that they did not even care about the negative effect of television. There might be possibilities of them having Cinderella complex, them being less productive and many more after they are exposed to television.  So, the readers to know the overall effects of the television when the article does not even mention the negative effects.

            Furthermore, the fact that they had television in their house shows that, those women do not live in a very rural area. When we had to go to a village in our ninth grade activity hike, we had to go to places where there was hardly any electricity and no television. Also the research was done in Bihar, Goa, Haryana, Tamil Nadu and Delhi; the states that are considered pretty urban in India. The researchers when to the place that ‘they’ thought were rural, but not to the very rural areas of India. Thus, the effects are not accurate as they do not even meet the standers.

            Lastly, this research was only done in a small scale. It was taken place in five states of India out of twenty eight states and seven unions in India. The research was takes place in five out of 35 states and unions of India. They are making a generalization out of the minority, a form of a false analogy. A fact or even a theory cannot be presented by using such a small scale, therefore if the author is trying to convey that people are actually being affected, they should take a larger scale and then do a actually research with better details.

            I disagree with the article’s central argument “that television is good, at least for the women of rural India.”  This research maybe true, however with numerous logical fallacy that author use such as, the black and white fallacy and false analogy, the article does not appeal to me.