AOA:Groove College

[mickgreen58]

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 rather than admit men into its programs. It is true that a majority of faculty members voted in favor of coeducation, arguing that it would encourage more students to apply to Grove. But eighty percent of the students responding to a survey conducted by the student government wanted the school to remain all female, and over half of the alumni who answered a separate survey also opposed coeducation. Keeping the college all-female, therefore, will improve morale among students and convince alumni to keep supporting the college financially."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The author posits that keeping the college all-female will improve morale among the students and convince alumni to keep supporting the college financially. The argument is full of gaps since it presents fragmentary evidence. Neither is the premise cogent nor is the conclusion convincing. The argument is evidently a result of a hasty generalization.

 

 

First, a portion of the author's argument concludes that not allowing male students to attend Grove College would improve morale. The aforementioned conclusion seems to suggest that the morale at Grove College needs to be improved. However, the author appearantly fails to ponder the idea that having males at the institution could actually improve morale.

 

 

Furthermore, the author makes a false assumption that if male students are allowed to attend the private institution, alumni will choose not to donate to Grove College. As stated in the argument, half of the alumni overwhelmingly decided that it was best to keep Grove College an all female institution. However, the survey did not conclude that if male students were indeed allowed to attend the institution, that the proponents of the decison would promptly decide not to donate.

 

 

The argument is evidently a result of a huge speculation and the author failed to ponder all aspects of. If the author would have taken into consideration some of the topics I have discussed above, the argument would have been sound and irrefutable. But whatever presented fails to provide a cogent and sound argument to support the claims being made.