PLEASE help rate my awa essay

[s.sarahk]

To whoever takes the time to rate this essay....
THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!! so very much! Really appreciate it!!!!!
Any type of feedback would also be greatly appreciated!! Feel free to say it as it is, it won't hurt my feelings!

-
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."
-

The argument claims that since there were more Waymarsh students who did not protest, the state legislature does not need to heed the appeals of the protesting students. Stated in this way the argument manipulates facts and conveys a distorted view of the situation. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there are no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is weak and has several flaws.

First, the argument readily assumes that the 200 students from Waymarsh State College who protested represent the whole population that is against the cuts in funding. This statement is a stretch because the cuts in funding will affect various state college programs. Clearly, there will be students from other state colleges who will be against the funding cuts as well. The argument could have been much clearer is it explicitly stated that the funding cuts will only affect Waymarsh State College.

Second, the argument claims that the other 12,000 Waymarsh students aren't concerned about their education because they either stayed on campus or left for winter break instead of attending the protest. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim. The students who stayed on campus could have had winter classes that could not be missed. In such a case, the student would have been unable to attend the protest due to his education. Moreover, the students who left for winter break may have left in order to work to pay for their education. If the argument had provided evidence that the students who did not attend the protest truly weren't concerned about their education, then the argument would have been a lot more convincing.

Finally, concluding that the state legislature need not heed the appeals merely due to the number of protestors is weak at most. There may be consequences from ignoring these protestors. As the younger generation has been increasing communication through social media outlets, the students would weren't able to attend the protest may voice their concerns on social media. Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression that the claim is more of a wishful thinking rather than substantive evidence.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons and is therefore unconvincing. It could be considerably strengthened if the author clearly mentioned all the relevant facts that correlate the number of protestors to the stated argument. In order to assess the merits of a certain decision, it is essential to have full knowledge of all contributing factors. In this particular case, it causes the readers to make assumptions in order to come to the same conclusion as the author. Without extra information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.