essay - GMAT: Argument 24

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 fs 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 fs funding at this time.

Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.

Answer:
The speaker, a member of the city council, asserts that no additional funding toward Einstein High School is required because the school has not needed an increase of the funding for 20 years to date and still has been improving its service. And he cites statistical data showing what percentage of the students advance to a college or university in order to support his conclusion. His conclusion, however, completely unreasonable because his reasoning contains several serious fallacies.

First, he assumes that the increase of proportion of students going on to attend a college or university is owing to the efforts of the school in improving its educational effectiveness. This assumption, however, is unwarranted because there is no clear evidence showing a direct link between the effort and the increase. That is, the increase might have been just due to a nationwide trend of increased sense toward higher education. To make it improve, the speaker should show the nationwide average of the rate at least, and should show a clear causal relationship between the effort and the increase.

Then, although the speaker reasons that there has been no increase of funding for 20 years at the school, this reasoning has big room to be criticized. That is, no increase of funding to the school doesn't necessarily mean no increase of investment in improving the service. For instance, maybe the number of the students had decreased, say, two-thirds for two decades. In the case, the school had been able to utilize its remained funding to improve its service. Therefore, his assumption that there was no fund increased is unwarranted. And this weakens the conclusion seriously.

Finally, he ignores the fact that the past trend does not necessarily ascertain the future trend. That is, his reasoning stands on the logic that something wasn't needed in the past so it must be the same in the future. This reasoning, however, may result in a serious situation. For instance, nowadays the development of information technology hikes up all around the world, so more schools have started investing in such kind of equipment such as computers or broad band Internet connection. In such case, unless the school invests a certain amount of money in the technology, the school cannot follow the trend, thereby making the students less competitive. Therefore, the speaker should have considered other factors that need to be considered when talking of the future.

In conclusion, since the speaker's reasoning has serious flaws, his conclusion that there fs no need to increase the amount of funding to Einstein High School is completely problematic.