"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."
Based on the reason that only 200 students from Waymarsh Sate College traveled to the state capitol building to protest against proposed cuts in funding for various state college program, whereas other 12,000 Waymarsh students did not, the author asserts that the state legislature need not heed the appeals of the protesting students, since the group who did not protest is far more numerous.
Behind this conclusion, the author infer that the other 12,000 Waymarsh students who did not traveled to the state capitol building to protest against proposed cuts in funding for various state college program did so because they were not so concerned about their education: they either stayed on campus or left for winter break.
However, the author’s analysis does not lend strong support to the author’s claim, and lack of credibility in reasoning makes the conclusion problematic.
First, the author makes hasty generalization that the number of protester represents opinion of majority. However, the author provides no evidence to support this assumption. In fact, this is not necessarily the case. For example, there is possibility that even though most of people are against of a legislate, because of irresistible force of life, such as work for living or taking care of family, they could not participate to the protest. Thus, without ruling out this possibility, the author’s conclusion would not be valid.
Second, the author assumes that staying on campus or left for winter break while the other traveled to the state capitol building to protest against proposed cut in funding does not indicate opposite opinion on proposed cuts in funding. However the author fails to consider it is evenly likely that travel to the state capitol building to protest is not the only way to do so. For instance, they can make a great movement against proposed cut in funding on the internet, and they can do so wherever they are. Therefore the author should provide additional information to strengthen this assumption.
To sum up, the author fails to furnish adequate justification for this assumption.
The absence of essential information on his two assumptions results in an unsound evidence.
Therefore, to make the conclusion of the argument more logically convincing, the author should include the above-mentioned assumptions as additional evidence. If so, the argument would be much more persuasive.
Thank you for criticize and evaluate my AWA !