PLEASE rate my AWA! Would be very much appreciated.
[#permalink]
22 Jun 2019, 14:02
Thanks for reading!
PROMPT:
Candidate: Our city's students have suffered long enough. Over the mayor's four years in office, our district's math and science scores have hovered well below the national average, even while our average teacher's salary has increased. Our student-per-class ratio is laughable, yet he has made no progress on building a new school. He simply cannot be trusted with our children's future; if you care about education, I am the only candidate you can support.
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument. In your discussion be sure to analyze the line of reasoning and the use of evidence in the argument. For example, you may need to consider what questionable assumptions underlie the thinking and what alternative explanations or counterexamples might weaken the conclusion. You can also discuss what sort of evidence would strengthen or refute the argument, what changes in the argument would make it more logically sound, and what, if anything, would help you better evaluate its conclusion.
ANSWER:
The candidate presenting her argument in the passage above contrasts herself to the candidate currently in office by attacking the mayor with presumptively important figures on the students that attend class in the city, and ends her argument by stating that she is the only candidate that can be supported if the voter cares about education. The argument above is, at best, mediocre since it is unsubstantiated by convincing evidence. The first piece of evidence the candidate presents is the fact that the students in the city are suffering, and immediately ties their suffering to the scores in math and science, she then goes on to suggest that the increase in the salaries of teachers should be followed closely by an increase in scores. The argument then closes by stating that if voters care about education, she is the only candidate they can support. The validity of the three points above will be explored throughout this passage.
Firstly, the candidate insinuates that children suffering is a direct effect of the low math and science scores in the city, which is absurd and blatantly irrelevant. The candidate's claim that students are suffering should be clarified in order to be more convincing. Suffering, in and of itself, can't be directly correlated to test scores; for example, the students in the city may have the highest rating in satisfaction when it comes to food, recreational activities, and extracurricular activities exposure, hence they would not be suffering, but having a great time at their respective schools. The author must stick to stricter comparisons if she wants a through and effective argument; for example, the author could've clarified that their academic performance has been suffering, and not the students themselves.
Secondly, the author states that math and science scores have hovered below the national average even while the average teacher's salary has increased. The correlation between student scores and the salary of teachers cannot stand on its own and should be closely examined. This information has no validity if it is not supported by studies that provide backing to the argument; for example, if there was a study conducted that backed the notion that an increase in teacher's salary should be followed by an increase in the scores of the students whom the teacher teaches, then the argument would be able to be more substantiated.
Thirdly, the candidate states that if the voter cares about education, then she is the only candidate that they can support. This point is ludicrous and just as "laughable" as the class ratio of the town. The candidate, by stating this in her argument, makes the direct correlation that scores are the only measurement of how effective a particular education has proven. There are a multitude of other things that can be attributed to a good education, but the candidate chooses this one-dimensional approach. Additionally, who is to say that there is no other candidate that is running on an education centric platform that would do great things for the city in terms of education? The candidate needs to clarify that the populace should support her and not other candidates because she will do the most for the education of the town, while at the same time present information on how she plans to revitalize the education of said town in order for this point to be more convincing.
In conclusion, the argument, as it stands now, is unsubstantiated by convincing evidence . The candidate could present a stronger argument if she clarified what kind of suffering she meant at the beginning of her argument, she provided us with research data that supports the notion that scores in math and science should be going up along with the salary of the town's teachers, and she clarified that she is the only candidate that could revitalize the educational system of the town while presenting information on how she plans to do so. If the author of the argument does not address the points above, the argument will not be able to stand on it's on and will continue to lack validity.