The following recommendation was made by the president and administrative staff of Grove College, a private institution, to the college's governing committee."We recommend that Grove College preserve its century-old tradition of all-female education rathe

The aforementioned argument is well-presented and appears to be cogent at first glance: since several studies indicate the preference of all female education in Grove College, it seems plausible to argue that Grove should preserve its old tradition of all-female education. However, as more light is shed on the issue and more detailed facts are concerned, the unsubstantiated assumptions lead me to question the validity of the argument.

First of all, the author assumes that the result of recent survey conducted by the student government can be reliable. Without take into consider the actual number of students who answer the survey, the author hastily believes that the majority of students prefer all-female education. However, in all likelihood, only negligible number of students participated in the survey, so 80% should not be considered as significant. In this case, it is illogical to conclude that a plethora of students oppose coeducation and therefore, the author’s argument of maintaining the old tradition of all-female education can be weakened.

Another assumption the author makes is that all-female education will reap a myriad of benefits to students. Since majority of students preferred all-female education on the report, the author hastily believes that it will enhance morale among students. However, there is no indication that students’ morale will increase if the co-education system is deterred. Moreover, if the benefits of co-education override the benefits of all-female education, students may choose to admit male students. Therefore, more information on students’ opinion is necessary to strengthen the author’s argument.

Lastly, the author assumes that if the school does not keep the old-tradition of all female, the alumnae will discontinue its financial supports. However, the author should consider that financial supports could be provided not because the school is all female but because the overall high quality of works done by college. For instance, it is possible that the alumnae decide to fund the school since the college is operating crucial research regarding embryonic cell. This research would reap a myriad of benefits to entire human beings by providing essential medical treatments, the alumnae decided to provide financial supports. In such a case, the school is whether all female or coeducation is not important. Therefore, the author should not rashly deduce alumnae could provide funding only if the school is all-female education.

To sum up, the argument above is not persuasive in many respects. To bolster the argument, the author should corroborate all the assumptions mentioned above.