Home >>GMAT >>Essays>>Essay - 10
The following appeared in the editorial section of a local
newspaper.
"This past winter, 200 students from
Waymarsh State College traveled to the state capitol
building to protest against proposed cuts in funding for various state college
programs. The other 12,000
Waymarsh students evidently weren�t so concerned about
their education: they either stayed on campus or left for winter break. Since
the group who did not protest is
far more numerous, it is more representative of the state�s
college students than are the protesters. Therefore the state legislature need
not heed the appeals of
the protesting students."
Discuss how well reasoned... etc.
The conclusion in this argument is that the
state legislature need not consider the views of protesting students. To support
this conclusion, the author points out
that only 200 of the 12,000 students traveled to the state capitol to voice
their concerns about proposed
cuts in college programs. Since the
remaining students did not take part in this protest, the author concludes they
are not interested in this issue. The
reasoning in this argument is flawed for two reasons.
First, the author assumes that because only
one-tenth of the students took part in the protest, these students� views are
unrepresentative of the entire student body. This
assumption is unwarranted. If it turns
out, for example, that the protesting
students were randomly selected from the
entire student body, their views would reflect the views of the entire college.
Without information regarding the way in
which the protesting students were selected, it is presumptuous
to conclude that their opinions fail to
reflect the opinions of their colleagues.
Second, the
author cites the fact that the remaining 12,000 students stayed on campus or
left for winter break as evidence that they are
not concerned about their education. One
obvious rejoinder to this line of reasoning is that the
students who did not participate did so
with the knowledge that their concerns would be expressed by the protesting
students.
In any case,
the author has failed to demonstrate a
logical connection between the students� alleged
lack of concern and the fact that they
either stayed on campus or left for winter
break. Without this connection, the conclusion reached by the author that the
remaining 12,000 students are not concerned about
their education is unacceptable.
As it stands, the argument is
not well reasoned. To make it logically
acceptable, the author would have to demonstrate that the protesting
students had some characteristic in common that biases their views, thereby
nullifying their protest as representative of the entire
college.
|
|