1 out of 1 members found this post helpful. Good post? |

Please give feedback on this argument

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 from Einstein do so. Clearly, Einstein has improved its
educational effectiveness over the past two decades. This improvement has occurred despite the fact that the
school’s funding, when adjusted for inflation, is about the same as it was 20 years ago. Therefore, we do not need to
make any substantial increase in the school’s funding at this time.”
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.

The author concludes that we do not need to make any substantial increase in the Einstein school’s funding at this time. the author's line of reasoning for that is since improvement in Einstein High school has occurred despite the fact that theschool’s funding, when adjusted for inflation, is about the same as it was 20 years ago.This argument is unconvincing due to several reasons.

First of all author's conclusion Einstein has improved it's educational effectiveness is based on the the questionable assumption that 20 years ago , one half of the students who graduated from einstein high school went to college or university, & today two-third of the students who graduated from this high school represents increase in no. of students.one possibilty is also that 20 years ago 500 students were admitted to this school so no. of student who go to uniersity will become 250 & now if they are only 150 students prefer to study at this school, then two-third of these students will be 100. so in this case 20 years ago schools conditions were better.

secondly, the author has not mention what are the criteria used to messure educational effectiveness. school may have apopted some positive changes & some changes may not be so well for the students so we can not say precisely that educational effectiveness has improved.

third, the author has not investigated the reasons behind the increase in the ratio, if the reason for the higher ratio is that the students don't have any other option left because some school in nearby area may get shut down on account of insufficient funding.

Last but not the list the author's statement that during last 20 years, the school has run succesfully without any additional funding so school can run in same funding for the future also is totally baseless. I mean the requirement of the school can not be predicted accurately.The school may have requirement of improving the infrastructure because school buildin is too old & if maintanance doesn't happen in time it can collapse at any time or the school may require to set up computer lab or canteen facility, so there is no reason to keep old budget & new budget same.

In nutshell, The author's conclusion that we do not need to make any substantial increase in the Einstein school’s funding at this time based on the reasoning that improvement in Einstein High school has occurred despite the fact that the school’s funding, when adjusted for inflation, is about the same as it was 20 years ago is invalid because the author fails to explain above flaws.