By Rahman SEKER

ANALYSIS OF ARGUMENT 

Hi everybody. Today, I will write essay of the GMAT which is argument type. Before I write my essay, I would like to inform that nowadays, I am studying for the GMAT because I plan to apply to MBA (Master of Business Administration). I have just learned that how I can write analysis of argument. That’s why I would like to share my first experience on this type essay which is not familiar for me. I think your recommendations could be beneficial for me to improve my essay. The topic is 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 twenty years ago. Therefore, we do not need to make any substantial increase in the school’s funding at this time.”

The member of the city council concludes that Einstein High School does not require to make any important increase in the school’s funding at this time. The author  presents several premises to support this conclusion. The first is that the graduated students from Einstein High School increase the rate of attending a college or university from half to two-thirds.  The second is that Einstein’s educational effectiveness reflects its improvement. The final premise is that although the school’s funding which is regulated for inflation, is about the same as it was twenty years ago, Einstein’s improvement has taken place. However, the conclusion of the member of the city council does not follow logically from the premises offered because there are several questionable assumptions underlying the argument.

To begin with, the first assumption necessary to this argument is that a proper number exists between twenty years ago and today of the students’ rate attending a college.  If twenty years ago the rate of students attending a college is not comparable to today the rate of students, one of the author’s major premises is undercut. One major flaw that this assumption is that twenty years ago, the number of students could be more than current number of students. It would be unlikely that the rate of students attending a college then is comparable to those of today. Furthermore, the qualities of the students themselves are not the same as they were in the past. These major differences make the assumption that the past is similar to the future an unlikely one. This assumption makes the author’s conclusion a weak one. If the author could demonstrate that the rate of students attending a college twenty years ago mirrored those of today, the argument would be strengthened.

Regarding the second premise in the argument, the second assumption necessary to this argument is that a proper causal exists between improvement in Einstein’s education and attending a college of students. Even if Einstein’s educational improvement reflects the attending a college for students, it is unfair to assume that more students go to the college. Even if we assume for the sake of the argument that the author’s presumed students take special lessons from the other teachers: that’s why, improvement of attending a college for students is not related to Einstein’s improvement. Besides, admission requirements of colleges or universities are easier and more flexible as it was twenty years ago. For that matter, improvement in Einstein’s education might not reflect attending a college of students, in which event this assumption makes the author’s conclusion a doubtful one. If the author could represent that improvement of Einstein’s educational effectiveness in twenty years indicated going a college of students, the argument would be strengthened.

Yet, the final assumption necessary to this argument is that a proper causal exists between the school’s funding and the improvement of Einstein’s education. Even assuming that the school’s funding has not be changed for twenty years, we do not know how Einstein’s improvement has occurred. In other words, for any number of reasons can trigger Einstein’s educational improvement. Perhaps, students are more capable and skilled to attend a college with the help of Einstein’s facilities; therefore, the school’s funding could be increased. For this reason, the author cannot convince me that without increase in the school’s funding leads to Einstein’s educational improvement. Whether the author could prove that not changing in the school’s funding supported improvement of Einstein’s education, the argument would be strengthened.

Finally, because the argument includes several questionable assumptions, the conclusion does not logically follow from the premise. The author makes unwarranted assumptions about the school’s funding is not be modified by Einstein High School. In order to make the argument more convincing, the author has to address these flaws.