The following appeared in a speech delivered by a member of the city council. “Twenty years ago, only half of the students who graduated from Einstein High School went on to attend a college or university. Today, two thirds of the students who graduate f

The argument claims that twenty years ago, of the students who graduated from Einstein High School, only half of them went to attend a college or university. And today, the number of graduates who attend a college or a university increased to two third of the students who graduate. Thus, the argument states that over the past two decades Einstein has improved its educational effectiveness. Furthermore, the argument claims that despite of proper no school funding, because of inflation, the school improved the same as it was twenty years ago. And therefore, the argument concludes that the school does not need to increase the school funding this time as they can improve without it. The argument manipulates the facts and conveys a distorted view of the situation. The conclusion of the argument relies on weak assumptions and hence the argument is weak and has several flaws.

Firstly, the author argument claims that only half of the graduated students went to a college or a university twenty years ago. And today two third of the graduated students go to a college or a university. Based upon this fact, the author concludes that the school has improved its educational effectiveness. This assumption of the author is clearly invalid as the argument has failed to mention the reasons behind the effectiveness of the school. There might be several factors because of which there was increase in the number of graduates attending universities. The figure from half to two third might be increased due to many other reasons, but not because the education of the school has improved.

One of the reasons which could be possible is that, there might be increase in the number of colleges and universities in the city, because of which more number of students are standing the universities after their school. Second plausible reasons might be increase in number of opportunities for graduated students, which was not available twenty years ago. Another reason could be decrease in the fees of university courses or new innovative courses which are responsible for attracting more number of graduates. The argument could have been much clearer if the author had stated the factors behind the improved education effectiveness of the school.

Secondly, the argument readily assumes that the school does not need any funding this year because the school has improved in the past twenty years without much funding. This is again a very weak and unsupported claim as the author does not demonstrate a relation between school funding and education effectiveness. The author states that despite adjusted funding due to inflation, the school has improved its education. But that was during the past twenty years. In the present situation, for a school to improve its education effectiveness, funding is the most important factor. Without convincing assumptions, 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 have been considerably strengthened if the author mentioned more facts and evidences. Without any knowledge of the contributing factors, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.