Can anyone review my AWA?
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.
Argument concludes that state legislature should not pay heed to the appeals of the protesting students because only 200 students traveled to the state capitol building to protest against proposed cuts in funding for various state college programs while other 12000 students either stayed at the campus or left for winter break. This line of reasoning has numerous flaws.
First, argument makes an unwarranted assumption that 12000 students who did not participate in protest were not concerned with their education. However, it might be possible that these students were as much against the proposed cuts as students who traveled to state capitol building and that while their fellow students were protesting at the capitol building, these students were continuing the protest at college level or on digital platforms. Argument is flawed because it is solely based on the actions of 200 students and because it fails to provide any information about the actions of other 12000 students. Had the argument provided relevant details about actions of other 12000 students, it would have been relatively ease to evaluate it.
Second, argument assumes that 200 protesters are not representative of state's college students because number of students who stayed back or who left for winter break are much more than 200. Argument overlooks the possibility that just as an employee union at any corporation can put forth the grievances of all employees to its management, so a student body of 200 students can represent the concerns of entire student fraternity to the government. In such scenario, the whole argument falls apart and state legislature may need to pay attention to protesting students since they are representative of entire college students.
Third and last, argument fails to provide any details about the students who are going to get affected by proposed cuts in funding for various programs. It may be possible that proposed cuts will affect education of a very small segment of students like underprivileged students who may be deriving financial assistance from these programs and thus, only affected students are protesting at the capitol state building. If this is true, state legislature may have to listen to the appeals of the protesters otherwise it may instil distrust not only in some 200 students but also in entire economically disadvantaged section of economy, and eventually this distrust can propagate to other sections of economy. Such a situation may have detrimental consequences for any legislature in the world and may cause dissolution of legislature, a consequence that no ruling government would want.
In summary, argument fails to make a compelling case for its conclusion for several reasons as stated above.