The following appeared in the editorial section of a local newspaper.
"This past winter, 200 students from Waymarsh State College traveled to the state capitol building to protest against proposed cuts in funding for various state college programs. The other 12,000 Waymarsh students evidently weren't so concerned about their education: they either stayed on campus or left for winter break. Since the group who did not protest is far more numerous, it is more representative of the state's college students than are the protesters. Therefore the state legislature need not heed the appeals of the protesting students.
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
Please Evaluate My Essay
This topic has expert replies
-
sahilbilga
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Sat Apr 20, 2013 9:34 pm
-
sahilbilga
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Sat Apr 20, 2013 9:34 pm
Here is My Response:
The argument concludes that the state legislature is not concerned at all to address the appeal of protesting students. To back up his conclusion, author points out that only 200 out of the 12000 students travelled to the state capital to raise their voice against the proposed cuts in funding for various state college programs. However, this assumption suffers from two serious flaws.
First, it is clearly mentioned in the argument that the number of students who took part in protest is far less than the total number of students, so these students' views are unrepresentative of entire student body. This is an unwarranted assumption. For instance, it might be the case that the protesting students are the representatives who have been chosen to reflect the views of entire college. Without taking into the consideration the way in which protesting students were selected, it is presumptuous to conclude that their opinions fail to reflect the sentiments of all students.
Second, the author has cited the fact that the remaining 12000 students are not concerned about their education as they either left for winter break or stayed on campus. One obvious rejoinder to this line of reasoning is that students who did not participate did so with the cognition that their views would be put forward by those who are protesting. Anyhow, author has failed to establish any logical connection between the students' alleged lack of concern and the fact that they either stayed on campus or left for the winter break. Without abridging this gap this assumption is inconceivable.
To summarize, the argument is not well reasoned and lacks concrete evidence to support its conclusion. In order to make in logical acceptable, the author has to demonstrate that the protesting students had some specific concerns that biases their views, thereby nullifying their protest as the representative of entire college student community.
The argument concludes that the state legislature is not concerned at all to address the appeal of protesting students. To back up his conclusion, author points out that only 200 out of the 12000 students travelled to the state capital to raise their voice against the proposed cuts in funding for various state college programs. However, this assumption suffers from two serious flaws.
First, it is clearly mentioned in the argument that the number of students who took part in protest is far less than the total number of students, so these students' views are unrepresentative of entire student body. This is an unwarranted assumption. For instance, it might be the case that the protesting students are the representatives who have been chosen to reflect the views of entire college. Without taking into the consideration the way in which protesting students were selected, it is presumptuous to conclude that their opinions fail to reflect the sentiments of all students.
Second, the author has cited the fact that the remaining 12000 students are not concerned about their education as they either left for winter break or stayed on campus. One obvious rejoinder to this line of reasoning is that students who did not participate did so with the cognition that their views would be put forward by those who are protesting. Anyhow, author has failed to establish any logical connection between the students' alleged lack of concern and the fact that they either stayed on campus or left for the winter break. Without abridging this gap this assumption is inconceivable.
To summarize, the argument is not well reasoned and lacks concrete evidence to support its conclusion. In order to make in logical acceptable, the author has to demonstrate that the protesting students had some specific concerns that biases their views, thereby nullifying their protest as the representative of entire college student community.
