The following is a letter from the parent of a private school student to the principal of that school Last year Kensington Academy turned over management of its cafeteria to a private vendor Swift Nutrition This company serves low fat low calorie meals th

In the letter from the parent of a Kensington student to its principal, the parent predicts serious health consequences for Kensington students if the Swift Nutrition, a private vendor, which provides low-fat, low-calorie meals to the students is not supplanted. The author arrives at the given prediction relying on two assumptions – first, his/her son and several of his friends’ complaint implies the entire students not enjoying the meals; second, that the students would opt to bring unhealthy foods from home. The prediction hinges on stated and unstated assumptions, if not substantiated, will undermine the persuasiveness of the argument. Thus, three questions must be answered so as to evaluate the given argument.

First of all, the author assumes the complaint of his/her son and his friends represents the reaction of entire students. It is imperative to answer whether significant number of students has the same opinion regarding the low-fat, low-calorie meals provided by the vendor. Perhaps, her son and his companions might be habitual to unhealthy eating habits and have been facing difficulties to cope up with the new type of meal. Moreover, the remaining students might be content with the provided food. Therefore, if the opinion of his son and his friends is not identical to that of the remaining significant number of students, the prediction will not be tenable.

Secondly, she/he not only assumes that unsatisfied students would prefer to bring meals from home but also assumes that the food brought from their home would be unhygienic. Before making such assumptions, many questions – whether students are willing to bring food from home, whether they are planning to bring unhealthy food—need to be answered. If they are not planning to bring food from home, her assumption regarding unhealthy food choice itself would be invalid. Perhaps, they could bring even healthier food from home, consequently, this would show improve in the students’ health. Such results will invalidate her prediction about serious health consequences in the students.

Lastly, she/he assumes that replacement of new vendor will avert her prediction, but there is no explanation about in what way the replacement would prevent such repercussion. Thus, how the superseding would prevent the prediction needs to be answered. If the present vendor, Swift Nutrition, is the best available vendor than choosing any other vendor might cause even more dire health consequences.

In conclusion, as the prediction is entirely on unwarranted assumptions, various questions need to be answered. Extensive research on the choice of students, willingness of the parents to send food from home, quality of food from home and so on must be carried out. As the mentioned questions have not been answered, the argument holds no water.