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.