Está en la página 1de 1

The argument is flawed for numerous reasons.

Primarily, the argument's conclusion


is based on that 80 percent of the students in survey wanted the school to remain
all female. However, it does not mention the information about the total number of
participants which is a critical issue in this special circumstance. Also, the
argument makes an unwarranted assumption that the admission of all-female students
will convince the alumnae to keep funding the college.

First of all, the argument fails to provide an unbiased justification that the
majority of the students want all-female education. It presents a survey as
evidences which was conducted by the student government. But the arguments needs to
answer to this very important question. How many students participated in that
survey? It could be possible that only a few students participated in that survey
and they were told to take their stance on all-female education. Given the answer
to the question, it would be possible to take the student's demand into account.

Secondly, the argument mentions another survey which was conducted by unspecified
authority. Was this survey accepted by a standard committee? The arguments cannot
answer to this question. This survey states that over half of the alumnae opposed
coeducation. But what about the other half? and the number of the alumnae
participated is also unstated in the argument which is important. These fallacies
make the argument feeble.

In addition, the argument states that all female education will improve morale
among students. However, the argument presents no evidence supporting it. How can
they be so certain that morality will be improved by all-female education. Are they
assuming that coeducation will hamper moral code of the students? Has coeduction in
the other colleges in the same state raised immoral activities among the students?
If the argument could provide answer to these question by taking an impartial
survey, then it could be possible to determine whether all-female education is
beneficial.

Finally, the argument readily believes that all-female education will convince
alumnae to keep supporting the college financially. It has given an evidence
earlier which suggested that over half of the alumane wanted all-female education.
But it could be possible that 51 percent of the alumnae wanted all-female
education. Therefore, 49 percent of the alumnae wanted coeducation. So, ignoring
this huge percentage of alumnae and their demands, it cannot conclude that alumnae
will be convinced to keep supporting the college. Thus, taking a new survey
participated by all alumnae to take a stance on this issue will solve this
discrepancy.

In conclusion, because this argument makes several unwarranted assumptions and does
not provide fully statistical data on the evidences it presents, it fails to make
the conclusion a compelling one.