essay - GMAT: Argument 37

The following appeared in an article in a college departmental newsletter:

Professor Taylor of Jones University is promoting a model of foreign language instruction in which students receive 10 weeks of intensive training, then go abroad to live with families for 10 weeks. The superiority of the model, Professor Taylor contends, is proved by the results of a study in which foreign language tests given to students at 25 other colleges show that first-year foreign language students at Jones speak more fluently after only 10 to 20 weeks in the program than do nine out of 10 foreign language majors elsewhere at the time of their graduation.

Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.

Answer:
The article concludes that the method of foreign language instruction developed by the professor of Jones University is superior to any other programs that other universities have. The reason that the argument stands on is a study conducted at 25 universities showing that students at Jones have abilities of speaking more fluently than other students at other universities. The reasoning, however, has several serous flaws, and thereby fails to make it convincing.

First, and most important, the argument completely ignores a significant difference between a nature of the promoting program and the others, which is considered a major defect of the study. That is, the program that the article supports has a kind of special treatment which is to live abroad for 10 weeks. Supposedly, not all other programs have this kind of special investment that typically costs a large amount of money. This means that the study represents just a result of the students' proficiency, not a superiority of the programs.

Second, we need to scrutinize what proficiencies the study was intended to figure out. The article says that the students can speak more fluently, but what is the definition of speaking fluently? Does the study not focus on a grammatical aspect or not judge the preciousness? Since the article doesn't show this kind of information, we can't measure the level of the students at Jones, and judge whether the instruction method is superior or not.

Finally, we must cast a doubt on reliability of the survey. Since the article doesn't provide any specific information concerning the method of the survey or the interviewed group, we can't ensure whether the survey was properly conducted. What if students at Jones University were all from the country that the surveyed foreign language is spoken? What if students at the other universities take the foreign language courses as a second chose language class, which means that they don't fully focus on the classes? Unless the article shows reliability of the study, we are not in a position to approve that the instruction method has superiority.

In conclusion, for reasons that I mentioned above, the author of the article fails to convince the readers to regard the instruction method as superior one. To make the argument convincing, the author must at least show the detailed information of the study and then perform reasonable comparison that can make the readers find the method superior.