Is It Possible To Oversimplify Tragedy Analysis

Is it Possible to Oversimplify Tragedy? Everyone knows or has experienced a tragedy in their life. Tragedies happen all around the world and each person may experience the same type of tragedy, for example, hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, car accidents, the 9/11 attack, or even death. Deepak Chopra tell his opinions about reactions to a tragic event in his article “After tragedy, brain needs to heal”. He lets the readers know his thoughts and feelings about how there are only two reactions to a tragedy. He sheds light on his thoughts of having only two reactions to a tragedy through the structure, logic with the use of an either-or fallacy, and lack of evidence that is in his piece.
As the basis of his argument, Chopra asserts that people
He has an understanding of why people rush into action which is not supported by evidence but it does make logical sense. A person who has experienced a tragic event, it does not have to be a school shooting like Newtown, will understand what Chopra is stating in his response to why people rush into action. “The reason we rush into activity is to escape the numbness of shock and the pain that follows it” (Chopra) is logical because dwelling on a painful event only makes it more painful since that is the only thing you are focused on. If a person keeps themselves occupied after a tragedy, they never have time to ponder about the event and how it makes them feel. Focusing on the problem at hand will only cause pain and suffering so after an event like the shooting in Newtown, people will always try to find an activity to keep busy. In “Face to Face With Tragedy”, Hoyt talks about facing a problem head on. People who try to avoid the thought of the tragedy at all cost “should really try staring truth in the face occasionally and try to understand it” (Hoyt). He does make it known that a person can keep themselves occupied with activities after a tragedy, but while being occupied they can still deal with the problem that was handed to
An either-or fallacy is when the author only gives the reader two choices but there are more out there. Chopra states that there are only two reactions to a tragedy and then goes into talking about those choices so the reader agrees with him, but unfortunately he misinformed his readers. According to “Normal Reactions to Tragic Events” by Brown University, an Ivy League research university, people can have physical, cognitive, emotional, or behavioral reactions to a traumatic event. “When we experience a traumatic loss that is outside the normal range of our daily experience, the stress of dealing with the aftermath of the tragedy may have overwhelmed many of our normal coping strategies” (Brown University) which means that after a tragic event each person can have different reactions since the event affected them differently. A person whose child died in the Newtown shooting will react differently than someone whose child survived it. Chopra realizes that shock and rushing into action are reactions to tragedy but are not the only two. By failing to discuss more than those two options he is giving the readers a piece of information but not all that is needed to fully understand a