The following appeared in an article in a college departmental newsletter:
"Professor Taylor of Jones University is promoting a model of foreign language instruction in which students
receive 10 weeks of intensive training, then go abroad to live with families for 10 weeks. The superiority of the model, Professor Taylor contends, is proved by the results of a study in which foreign language tests given to students at 25 other colleges show that first-year foreign language students at Jones speak more fluently after only 10 to 20 weeks in the program than do 9 out of 10 foreign language majors elsewhere at the time of their graduation."
Discuss how well reasoned ... etc.
===============================================================================
The argument in concluding that the model adopted at Jones University is superior because students at Jones University speaks fluently only after 10 to 20 weeks in the program than majority of students elsewhere leaves several holes that might have strengthen the arguments.
First, there is no information about quality of students at Jones and other universities, which students has been compared. In case the students input quality itself is superior than elsewhere then the program has little to do with the fluency these students have got. But, otherwise, if students as compared are weaker or less fluent in languages being compared then definetly program has added value to students. So background information about the students should have been provided to strengthen the argument.
Second, the arguments talk about the 10 weeks vacation with family but no background info about selected students family is given. If some of the family members are fluent in the foreign language that is being taught then it could well be the case that fluency came because of family members at least in part. It is natural to learn more if ones spouse is fluent in a foreign language, for example. So some background info about the family members negating their knowledge of the foreign language should have strengthen the argument that the model is superior.
Third, the issue talks about the model of teaching foreign languages and goes on to compare with the first year foreign language students who speaks more fluently after only 10 to 20 weeks in the program than do 9 out of 10 foreign language majors elsewhere at the time of their graduation. The foreign language being compared is not mentioned here. There could be several languages which are tough to master. In addition for a given region the foreign language could mean different things. Let us take this example, let us say the language being talked about is Hindi. It will be relatively tough for an English country like US to master the same. But if some country let us say Pakistan/Bangladesh where a very similar form of Hindi, Urdu is national language, but the people of these nation uses quite a bit of Hindi in their conversation. So learning Hindi for them will be quite easy. So some more information about language being taught should have been provided to strengthen the argument.
Fourth, Professor Taylor talks about the Test and fluency of language. But no mention of content of test has been provided. For instance, based on test content it is possible to master the test but fluency is not directly proportional to the same. Issue at hand could be TOFEL, taken by foreign students for admission in American University. It is quite easy to ace the test but that doesn't mean a person will be fluent in speaking the language as well. For example, TOFEL focusses on listening some words and choosing some option, there is no test of how fluent the test taker is. So if some one makes an inference based on TOFEL test that the test taker is fluent as well, that will be probably not correct. So Professor Taylor should have mentioned about the content of test.
In summary, the points as raised above, i.e. Students background, family background, type of languages being compared across universities, and content of test based on which the fluency was measured should have been discussed to strengthen the argument.
"Professor Taylor of Jones University is promoting a model of foreign language instruction in which students
receive 10 weeks of intensive training, then go abroad to live with families for 10 weeks. The superiority of the model, Professor Taylor contends, is proved by the results of a study in which foreign language tests given to students at 25 other colleges show that first-year foreign language students at Jones speak more fluently after only 10 to 20 weeks in the program than do 9 out of 10 foreign language majors elsewhere at the time of their graduation."
Discuss how well reasoned ... etc.
===============================================================================
The argument in concluding that the model adopted at Jones University is superior because students at Jones University speaks fluently only after 10 to 20 weeks in the program than majority of students elsewhere leaves several holes that might have strengthen the arguments.
First, there is no information about quality of students at Jones and other universities, which students has been compared. In case the students input quality itself is superior than elsewhere then the program has little to do with the fluency these students have got. But, otherwise, if students as compared are weaker or less fluent in languages being compared then definetly program has added value to students. So background information about the students should have been provided to strengthen the argument.
Second, the arguments talk about the 10 weeks vacation with family but no background info about selected students family is given. If some of the family members are fluent in the foreign language that is being taught then it could well be the case that fluency came because of family members at least in part. It is natural to learn more if ones spouse is fluent in a foreign language, for example. So some background info about the family members negating their knowledge of the foreign language should have strengthen the argument that the model is superior.
Third, the issue talks about the model of teaching foreign languages and goes on to compare with the first year foreign language students who speaks more fluently after only 10 to 20 weeks in the program than do 9 out of 10 foreign language majors elsewhere at the time of their graduation. The foreign language being compared is not mentioned here. There could be several languages which are tough to master. In addition for a given region the foreign language could mean different things. Let us take this example, let us say the language being talked about is Hindi. It will be relatively tough for an English country like US to master the same. But if some country let us say Pakistan/Bangladesh where a very similar form of Hindi, Urdu is national language, but the people of these nation uses quite a bit of Hindi in their conversation. So learning Hindi for them will be quite easy. So some more information about language being taught should have been provided to strengthen the argument.
Fourth, Professor Taylor talks about the Test and fluency of language. But no mention of content of test has been provided. For instance, based on test content it is possible to master the test but fluency is not directly proportional to the same. Issue at hand could be TOFEL, taken by foreign students for admission in American University. It is quite easy to ace the test but that doesn't mean a person will be fluent in speaking the language as well. For example, TOFEL focusses on listening some words and choosing some option, there is no test of how fluent the test taker is. So if some one makes an inference based on TOFEL test that the test taker is fluent as well, that will be probably not correct. So Professor Taylor should have mentioned about the content of test.
In summary, the points as raised above, i.e. Students background, family background, type of languages being compared across universities, and content of test based on which the fluency was measured should have been discussed to strengthen the argument.
Charged up again to beat the beast 
