The argument claims that the state legislature need not heed the appeals of the protesting students since the group who did not pretest is far more numerous.
The conclusion of the argument is based on the premise that 12000 Waymarsh students who did not protest were not so concerned about their education. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that the students, who have not taken part in the protest were not concerned about their education. However, it fails to mention other factors, which could affect students’ decision concerning the participation in the protest. For example, 200 students that have travelled to the state capital building could have been appointed as other students’ representatives. The author fails to mention the laws that regulate protests. The legal number of people taking part in the protest might have been limited in compliance with these laws.
Second, the argument could have been much clearer if it provided information on any other similar protests aroused by proposed cuts in funding for various state college programs. In fact, it is not at all clear if similar actions also were also taken by students of other colleges affected by proposed cuts.
Finally, the argument fails to mention one of the key factors, on basis of which it could be evaluated, namely if any of 1200 students who haven’t taken part in the protest are enrolled in the programs which would be affected should the cuts take place.
Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.
The
argument
claims that the state legislature need not heed the appeals of the protesting
students
since the group
who
did not pretest is far more numerous.
The conclusion of the
argument
is based
on the premise that 12000
Waymarsh
students
who
did not
protest
were not
so
concerned about their education.
The
conclusion of the
argument
relies on assumptions for which there is no
clear
evidence.
Hence
, the
argument
is unconvincing and has several flaws.
First
, the
argument
readily
assumes that the
students
,
who
have not taken part in the
protest
were not concerned about their education.
However
, it fails to mention
other
factors, which could affect
students’
decision concerning the participation in the
protest
.
For example
, 200
students
that have travelled to the state capital building could have
been appointed
as
other
students’
representatives. The author fails to mention the laws that regulate
protests
. The legal number of
people
taking part in the
protest
might have
been limited
in compliance with these laws.
Second, the
argument
could have been much clearer if it provided information on any
other
similar
protests
aroused by proposed
cuts
in funding for various state college programs. In fact, it is not at all
clear
if similar actions
also
were
also
taken by
students
of
other
colleges
affected
by proposed
cuts
.
Finally
, the
argument
fails to mention one of the key factors, on basis of which it could
be evaluated
,
namely
if any of 1200
students
who
haven’t taken part in the
protest
are enrolled
in the programs which would be
affected
should the
cuts
take place.
Without this information, the
argument
remains unsubstantiated and open to debate.