जुत्ताको मूल्यभन्दा कमजोर अर्थतन्त्र. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Appeal to emotion

Using emotionally charged language and imagery to persuade rather than relying on balanced evidence and reasoning.

1) "कानुनी अन्योल र सुशासनको अभावले जनतामा गहिरो असन्तुष्टि छ ।" 2) "जब कानुन केवल शक्तिशालीलाई सुरक्षा प्रदान गर्नका लागि लागू हुन्छ, जब साधारण नागरिकले न्याय पाउन सक्दैन, तब समाजमा निराशा र आक्रोश बढ्छ ।" 3) "मेरो बुबा पुस्ताले दुःख गरेर, छातीमा गोली थापेर ल्याएको प्रजातन्त्र..." These sentences invoke deep frustration, injustice, sacrifice, and betrayal without providing concrete examples, data, or specific cases, steering the reader primarily through emotional resonance.

3 suggestions

Add specific, verifiable examples or data to support claims about legal uncertainty and lack of good governance (e.g., court backlogs, corruption indices, documented cases of impunity).

Qualify emotional statements with scope and evidence, such as: "धेरै नागरिकले ... अनुभव गरेको बताउँछन्" instead of implying universal experience.

Balance emotionally charged descriptions of sacrifice and betrayal with some acknowledgment of complexities or partial achievements of the democratic period.

Hasty generalization

Drawing broad conclusions about groups or systems based on limited or unspecified evidence.

1) "जब कानुन केवल शक्तिशालीलाई सुरक्षा प्रदान गर्नका लागि लागू हुन्छ, जब साधारण नागरिकले न्याय पाउन सक्दैन..." – This implies that law exists only to protect the powerful and that ordinary citizens cannot get justice, as if this is universally true. 2) "आजको पुस्ता केवल समस्यामा रोइरहेको छैन, उनीहरू समाधान खोज्न, प्रश्न गर्न र परिवर्तनका लागि संघर्ष गर्न तयार छन्" – This portrays the entire younger generation as uniformly active, solution-oriented, and ready to struggle, ignoring diversity within the group. 3) "यो मुलुकलाई बन्धक बनाएर राख्ने काम कसले गरिरहेको छ ?" – The rhetorical question suggests a monolithic group holding the country hostage, without specifying who, how many, or on what basis.

3 suggestions

Use more precise qualifiers such as "धेरैजसो", "धेरै अवस्थामा", "केही शक्तिशाली समूह" instead of absolute formulations like "केवल शक्तिशालीलाई" or "साधारण नागरिकले न्याय पाउन सक्दैन".

Acknowledge variation within groups: e.g., "आजको पुस्ताका धेरै युवाहरू..." instead of implying all youth behave the same way.

Where possible, reference surveys, studies, or concrete incidents to support claims about systemic bias or youth activism.

Oversimplification

Reducing complex political and social realities to overly simple cause–effect narratives or binary oppositions.

1) "जब कानुन केवल शक्तिशालीलाई सुरक्षा प्रदान गर्नका लागि लागू हुन्छ" – Suggests a single, simple function of law (protecting the powerful), ignoring partial rule of law, mixed outcomes, and institutional complexity. 2) "त्यो प्रजातन्त्रमाथि धावा बोलेर सत्तामा आएकाहरूले समाजलाई अगाडि बढाएनन् ।" – Implies that those who came to power after attacking democracy have not advanced society at all, ignoring any nuanced or mixed impacts. 3) "हिजोको पुस्ताले बनाएको देश नयाँ पुस्तालाई सुम्पिन किन आनाकानी गरेको ?" – Frames the issue as older generation vs younger generation, as if the problem is simply refusal to hand over the country, rather than structural, institutional, and economic factors.

3 suggestions

Recognize complexity by adding nuance: e.g., "धेरै अवस्थामा कानुन शक्तिशालीको पक्षमा झुकेको देखिन्छ, यद्यपि केही क्षेत्रमा सुधारका प्रयास पनि भएका छन्".

Instead of absolute judgments like "समाजलाई अगाडि बढाएनन्", specify areas of failure and any areas of progress, supported by evidence.

Frame generational tensions as part of broader structural issues (institutions, policies, economic constraints) rather than a simple older-vs-younger conflict.

Biased language

Using loaded or value-laden terms that implicitly judge people or groups without neutral description.

1) "जब कानुन केवल शक्तिशालीलाई सुरक्षा प्रदान गर्नका लागि लागू हुन्छ" – The word "केवल" (only) and "शक्तिशाली" (the powerful) in this framing strongly imply total capture and moral condemnation. 2) "यो मुलुकलाई बन्धक बनाएर राख्ने काम कसले गरिरहेको छ ?" – The phrase "बन्धक बनाएर राख्ने" (holding the country hostage) is highly charged and accusatory. 3) "प्रजातन्त्रमाथि धावा बोलेर सत्तामा आएकाहरू" – "धावा बोलेर" (attacking/assaulting) is a strongly negative characterization without specifying legal or historical context.

3 suggestions

Replace loaded terms with more descriptive, neutral language, e.g., "कानुन प्रायः शक्तिशालीको पक्षमा झुकेको देखिन्छ" instead of "केवल शक्तिशालीलाई सुरक्षा प्रदान गर्नका लागि लागू हुन्छ".

Clarify who is being criticized and on what basis, using specific roles or actions (e.g., "फलाना कालखण्डका सरकारहरू" or "फलाना नीतिगत निर्णयहरू") instead of broad, accusatory metaphors like "बन्धक बनाएर".

Where strong criticism is warranted, pair it with factual grounding (dates, decisions, policies) to reduce reliance on emotive labels.

Unbalanced reporting

Presenting one side’s perspective strongly while omitting or minimizing alternative views, context, or counterarguments.

The article strongly centers the grievances of citizens and the aspirations of the younger generation, while portraying those in power and parts of the older generation in a largely negative light. There is no mention of any reforms attempted by current leaders, any internal diversity within the older generation, or any self-critique of youth politics. For example: - "त्यो प्रजातन्त्रमाथि धावा बोलेर सत्तामा आएकाहरूले समाजलाई अगाडि बढाएनन् ।" – No acknowledgment of any positive or mixed outcomes. - "हिजोको पुस्ताले बनाएको देश नयाँ पुस्तालाई सुम्पिन किन आनाकानी गरेको ?" – No exploration of reasons, constraints, or differing perspectives from the older generation.

3 suggestions

Include at least brief mention of reforms, policies, or efforts by current or past leaders that some consider positive, even if the author ultimately critiques them.

Acknowledge that within the older generation there are also reformists and allies of youth, not just obstructive actors.

Mention potential challenges or limitations within youth politics (e.g., organization, experience, internal divisions) to avoid idealizing one side.

Straw man / caricature of opposing side

Presenting an oversimplified or exaggerated version of the opposing side’s position or behavior, making it easier to attack.

1) "हिजोको पुस्ताले बनाएको देश नयाँ पुस्तालाई सुम्पिन किन आनाकानी गरेको ?" – Implies that the older generation as a whole is deliberately and uniformly refusing to hand over the country, which caricatures a complex set of political, institutional, and generational dynamics. 2) "यो मुलुकलाई बन्धक बनाएर राख्ने काम कसले गरिरहेको छ ?" – Suggests that some actors are simply "holding the country hostage" without acknowledging that they may justify their actions in terms of stability, experience, or other reasons (right or wrong).

3 suggestions

Represent the motivations and arguments of the older generation and ruling elites in their own terms (e.g., claims about stability, experience, or gradual change), then critique those arguments with evidence.

Avoid attributing a single, malicious intention ("बन्धक बनाएर") to all political actors; instead, specify particular policies or behaviors and analyze their impacts.

Use formulations like "कसैले यस्तो तर्क गर्छन् कि..." followed by a critical evaluation, rather than assuming bad faith across the board.

Narrative fallacy

Imposing a coherent, symbolic story on complex events, using metaphors and anecdotes as if they fully explain systemic issues.

1) "हरेक नेपाली जेन–जीका खुट्टाले बताइरहेका छन् । ती प्रत्येक खुट्टाले लगाएका विदेशमा उत्पादित सस्ता जुत्ताले हाम्रो समाज र राज्यको चरित्र उदाङ्गो पारिरहेका छन् ।" – The imported cheap shoes worn by Gen-Z are used as a symbolic narrative device to explain or reveal the character of society and the state. This is a powerful metaphor but risks being treated as explanatory rather than illustrative. 2) The contrast between "बुबा पुस्ताले ... छातीमा गोली थापेर ल्याएको प्रजातन्त्र" and the current state of democracy is framed as a story of betrayal and capture, which may oversimplify the many intervening factors.

3 suggestions

Explicitly mark metaphors as illustrative, not explanatory, e.g., "यी सस्ता जुत्ताले प्रतीकात्मक रूपमा देखाउँछन् कि..." and then provide concrete socio-economic data (import statistics, youth employment, migration) to support the underlying point.

Complement the generational sacrifice–betrayal narrative with a brief outline of key structural factors (economic dependency, institutional weaknesses, global pressures) that also shape outcomes.

Avoid implying that a single symbol (cheap foreign shoes) can "उदाङ्गो पार्नु" the entire character of the state; instead, present it as one of several indicators.

Confirmation bias / one-sided selection of evidence

Highlighting only information or impressions that support the author’s thesis while ignoring potentially disconfirming evidence.

The article emphasizes youth activism, frustration with governance, and betrayal of democratic ideals, but does not mention: - Any youth apathy, disengagement, or complicity. - Any partial successes of democratic institutions (e.g., elections held, some legal reforms, civic freedoms). - Any internal debates within youth or older generations. This selective focus reinforces a pre-existing narrative of corrupt elites vs enlightened youth.

3 suggestions

Include at least brief acknowledgment of countervailing facts, such as areas where democratic institutions have functioned or where youth engagement is low.

Mention that not all youth are politically active or progressive, and not all older leaders are obstructive, to avoid reinforcing a simplistic good-vs-bad dichotomy.

If the goal is critique, explicitly state the scope: e.g., "यो लेखले मुख्यत: ती राजनीतिक शक्तिहरूको आलोचना गर्छ, जसले..." and clarify that this does not cover all actors.