Greetings!
Please review/grade my essay. This will really help me in improving my writing skills.
The following appeared in a proposal from the development office at Platonic University:
"Because Platonic University has had difficulty in meeting its expenses over the past three years, we need to find new ways to increase revenues. We should consider following the example of Greene University, which recently renamed itself after a donor who gave it $100 million. If Platonic University were to advertise to its alumni and other wealthy people that it will rename either individual buildings or the entire university itself after the donors who give the most money, the amount of donations would undoubtedly increase."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
The author claims that Platonic University should consider increasing its revenues by accepting donations from wealthy people and renaming itself after the donor. The author also cites an example of Greene University which renamed itself after a donor who donated $100 million. Though at a first glance, the argument sounds logical but a careful analysis reveals that the author presents a poorly reasoned argument, based on several weak premises and questionable assumptions. Based solely on the evidence the author offers, one cannot accept the argument as valid.
The primary issue with the author's reasoning lies in his assumption that Platonic University will be able to raise donations similar to how Greene University did. Though Greene University has renamed itself after the donor, it may not be a good enough reason for a donor to make a donation to Platonic University. For example, it may be possible that unlike Greene University, Plantonic university might not be a reputed university and no one may be interested in getting associated with its name. The author could have made the argument more convincing, if the author had included an evidence, say a survey data, showing that many people will be interested in giving the university their names by making donations.
In addition, the author readily assumes that an advertisement will certainly help to increase the amount of donations without considering the possibility that such an advertisement may actually hurt the university's revenues further. To illustrate, it may happen that such an advertisement brings disrepute to the university which is begging for funds and may discourage people even further to enroll themselves in it or make any donation to it. The argument could be considerably strengthened if the author includes a correlation between such an advertisement and people's interest to respond positively to such an advertisement.
Finally, the author fails to explore the main reason behind low revenues of the university and simply ignores other alternatives to address the main problem and fix it. For instance, the main reason behind low revenues of the university may be low enrollment rate because of outdated courses and upgrading the courses may actually help the university to increase the enrollment rate. A donation, even if received, may not help the university to sustain itself for long the main issue is addressed. The argument will be much more persuasive if the author clearly discards any such possibility.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed and unconvincing. If the author truly hopes to change the readers' minds on the issue, he would have to fix the flaws in his logic and provide evidence in support of his assumptions. In the absence of this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and fails to impress the reader.
Thanks in advance.
Please review/grade my essay. This will really help me in improving my writing skills.
The following appeared in a proposal from the development office at Platonic University:
"Because Platonic University has had difficulty in meeting its expenses over the past three years, we need to find new ways to increase revenues. We should consider following the example of Greene University, which recently renamed itself after a donor who gave it $100 million. If Platonic University were to advertise to its alumni and other wealthy people that it will rename either individual buildings or the entire university itself after the donors who give the most money, the amount of donations would undoubtedly increase."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
The author claims that Platonic University should consider increasing its revenues by accepting donations from wealthy people and renaming itself after the donor. The author also cites an example of Greene University which renamed itself after a donor who donated $100 million. Though at a first glance, the argument sounds logical but a careful analysis reveals that the author presents a poorly reasoned argument, based on several weak premises and questionable assumptions. Based solely on the evidence the author offers, one cannot accept the argument as valid.
The primary issue with the author's reasoning lies in his assumption that Platonic University will be able to raise donations similar to how Greene University did. Though Greene University has renamed itself after the donor, it may not be a good enough reason for a donor to make a donation to Platonic University. For example, it may be possible that unlike Greene University, Plantonic university might not be a reputed university and no one may be interested in getting associated with its name. The author could have made the argument more convincing, if the author had included an evidence, say a survey data, showing that many people will be interested in giving the university their names by making donations.
In addition, the author readily assumes that an advertisement will certainly help to increase the amount of donations without considering the possibility that such an advertisement may actually hurt the university's revenues further. To illustrate, it may happen that such an advertisement brings disrepute to the university which is begging for funds and may discourage people even further to enroll themselves in it or make any donation to it. The argument could be considerably strengthened if the author includes a correlation between such an advertisement and people's interest to respond positively to such an advertisement.
Finally, the author fails to explore the main reason behind low revenues of the university and simply ignores other alternatives to address the main problem and fix it. For instance, the main reason behind low revenues of the university may be low enrollment rate because of outdated courses and upgrading the courses may actually help the university to increase the enrollment rate. A donation, even if received, may not help the university to sustain itself for long the main issue is addressed. The argument will be much more persuasive if the author clearly discards any such possibility.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed and unconvincing. If the author truly hopes to change the readers' minds on the issue, he would have to fix the flaws in his logic and provide evidence in support of his assumptions. In the absence of this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and fails to impress the reader.
Thanks in advance.
