Please point out the flaws in my argument analysis !

[arq]

The following is an excerpt from a letter sent by the principal of Greenwood School to the parents of all incoming kindergartners."We have decided to institute a policy of all-day kindergarten, instead of half-day kindergarten, for all students at Greenwood School. All-day kindergarten will help all our students achieve at their highest levels. The classes will be 'tracked'; so that average students are together, but high-achieving and low-achieving students will be put together in classes. In this way, the high-achieving students will be able to help pull the low-achieving students up to their level, so that no student falls behind. The all-day kindergarten classes will cover the same material previously covered in the half-day kindergarten classes, but will go at a slower speed to accommodate learning differences. In addition, the students will receive extra instruction in music, art, and physical education. One of the greatest benefits of the plan, however, is that students will be in a structured environment for longer hours, reducing the numbers of hours that otherwise would be wasted at home or in day care."




The principal assumes that this system of classes being tracked would yield positive results without considering the fact that it can be counterproductive. Also, being just in kindergarten we can not literally classify children as high achieving and low achieving. The low achieving should students should rather be addressed as those requiring some additional help. Putting them with the other bright students would not necessarily help them do better. Each student is different and the problems should be addressed by the teachers at an individual's level. Also, the performance of some of the bright students might get affected in this kind of grouping.
With such a drastic change in the system by increasing the hours, keeping the material same would not help. Children can truly benefit with this only if they are taught something extra, something more that would help them further. And again going at a slower speed to accommodate learning differences might not prove to be beneficial for all the students alike. While some kids have a better grasping power, giving more time to do the same topics or doing them again might waver their attention and make them disinterested.
Of all the things, the principal fails to consider the fact that for kids the first teachers are their parents. What they learn at home from their parents, staying with their siblings is something no institute can teach them. Seeing their parents and sibling follow certain rules and the family doing things in a certain way would help them imbibe the values better than what their text books can teach. Thus, kids do not literally 'waste' their time at home. Kids need to learn the importance of having a family and understand how loved ones stick with each other in testing times. With the value of a family being increasingly undermined. kids need to learn to value and feel lucky being a part of one.
As they would grow, given the present education system they would as it is have to move out and fend for themselves, so at this tender age they should spend as much time as they can with their parents and the kindergartens need not be so very ambitious and give the kids their own time to bloom and grow. Being so strict at such an early stage would only hamper their emotional and mental development.

[Muhammad Fayyaz]

Hi
Let me give you some recommendation ( I am not concurring that my recommendations are flawless)
1. Your sorting out of flaws in the argument is felicitous but in the first paragraph you amalgamated a lot of flaws, which in my perspective in not correct. You have to describe the first paragraph as an introduction and cursorily discuss all the flaws and then write one one paragraph on each flaw i.e total five to six paragraphs.
2. Also when next time you place this essay topic so include the ETS specific instructions also.

[arq]

Thanks so much. I do agree with the fact that my analysis is lacking a proper introductory paragraph. And the ETS instructions went something like this-
Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.

[Muhammad Fayyaz]

Hi
we can send one's essay and comment on each other essay. My Skype Id is : fayyazcivil

[firefly55]

Prompt:

The following opinion was provided in a letter to the editor of a national aeronautics magazine:“Manned space flight is costly and dangerous. Moreover, the recent success of a series of unmanned space probes and satellites has demonstrated that a great deal of useful information can be gathered without the costs and risks associated with sending men and women into space. Therefore, we should invest our resources in unmanned space flight."

Essay:

The assumption provided that "manned space flight is costly and dangerous" does not appear to have any reliable or valid evidence to support its notion. Although manned space flight may be costly and dangerous we cannot make the underlying assumption that unmanned space flight is more safe and less expensive. We must also consider closely the recent success that the unmanned space probes have had and examine what attributed its real success. The advantages and disadvantages also play a role in considering whether we should invest in unmanned or manned flights.

We must first examine whether manned space flight is actually more costly and dangerous than unmanned flights. For instance, why and how are manned flights more unsafe than unmanned flights. Is this purely due to the fact that it is carrying passengers or are there differences in the mechanical structure of the aeronautical device. If there are differences in the mechanical structure then we can construct the manned space flight to be of minimal or equivalent risk as the unmanned flight. If it is purely considered more dangerous because of a passenger on board then we can examine why a passenger must be needed in the first place. We must also consider why the manned flight may be more costly. Is it purely due to the costs of maintaining life on board because of the passengers. For example, more money for food, and other necessary supplies are causing manned flights to be pricier. Or is the manned flight more expensive due to other differences.

Undoubtedly, these differences in cost and safety must be analyzed through a scope of what advantages and disadvantages brings each flight. If the manned flight is more expensive because of passengers on board, then perhaps the benefits may outweigh the costs as passengers can bring back more useful information from a space flight. Also, if something were to go wrong during a space flight, passengers may be trained and better equipped to mitigate problems that an unmanned flight may not automatically be able to do on its own. Furthermore, if the the manned space flight is more expensive and dangerous we must consider how much more pricier is it from the unmanned flight. If the the cost differences are minimal and the safety hazard are not hugely disparate then perhaps investing into an unmanned space flight may not be practical.

Nevertheless, it is vital to critically examine the recent space probes and satellites that have gathered useful information. Perhaps their success can be attributed to an external variable or an accidental fluke. What evidence lies that their success was mainly due to it being "unmanned." If it was due to its mechanical structure then we cannot invest our resources into the unmanned space flight because the success of the unmanned space flight goes unwarranted. There must be a causal relationship that determined that having a passenger/passengers on flight make the space mission less successful than not having any passengers. The assumptions provided have been purely correlational as we do not know for certain what variable caused the success. Inevitably, we cannot invest our resources into the unmanned space flights because of the flimsy structure of the argument.