The argument claims that…Stated in this way, the argument failed to mention several key factors

on the basis of which it could be evaluated that…reveals examples of leap of faith, poor reasoning
and ill-defined terminology…The conclusion of the argument has no basis in fact – it relies on
assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and has
several flaws.

First, the argument readily assumes that…The statement is a stretch… For example, clearly, The
argument could have been much clearer if it explicitly stated that….

Second, the argument states that…However, this is a very weak claim as the argument does not
demonstrate any correlation between x and y. To illustrate…clearly…while…If the argument
provided evidence that …. Then the argument would have been a lot more convincing

Finally, xyz xyz xyz. Without convincing answers to these questions, one is left with the impression
that the claim is more of a wishful thinking than substantive evidence.

In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above-mentioned reasons, and is therefore
unconvincing. It could be considerably improved if the author clearly stated that … In order to
assess the merits of a certain situation, it is essential to have full knowledge of all the contributing
factors. In this particular case… Without this information, the argument remains unsubstantiated
and open to debate.
The following appeared in a speech delivered by a member of the city council: “Twenty years ago,
only half of the students who graduated from Einstein High School went on to attend a college or
university. Today, two–thirds of the students who graduate from Einstein do so. Clearly, Einstein has
improved its educational effectiveness over the past two decades. This improvement has occurred
despite the fact that the school’s funding, when adjusted for inflation, is about the same as it was 20
years ago. Therefore, we do not need to make any substantial increase in the school’s funding at this
time.” Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.

The argument states that as of now, there is no need to make any substantial increase in the
school’s funding. The argument is based on the observation that today, two-thirds of the students
who graduate from Einstein High School go on to attend college, while twenty years ago, only half of
the students who graduated did so. As it stands, the claim misses out on a number of important
factors that could better help evaluate this decision. The argument is flawed, and fails to convince
the reader of the plan of action that is recommended.

First, the argument claims that twenty years ago, only half of the students who graduated from
Einstein went on to attend college or university. However, there is no clarity provided on where the
other students went to. It is, in fact, quite possible that some students took up jobs immediately
after high school and then resumed college when they had the necessary funding for the same. It is
also possible that a lot of the students went on to work on their entrepreneurial endeavours. The
argument implicitly states that attending college is the only metric of success, which is clearly not
the case. Had the argument provided more information on what the other half of students went on
to do, it would have been much more convincing.

Second, the argument states that the currently, two-thirds of the students go on to attend university
or college. As states, the proportion does not provide a real insight into the actual number of
students who graduate and then go on to attend universities. It is entirely possible that the total
number of the students attending Einstein reduced by a large amount, but the number of students
who attend college remained the same, thereby increasing the proportion of students attending
college. If the argument provided statistics available on the growth of campus population, the
argument would have been much clearer.

Finally, the argument takes these two weak links and comes to the conclusion that Einstein has
improved its educational effectiveness over the past two decades, despite the fact that the school’s
funding, when adjusted for inflation, has essentially remained the same. This is a weak conclusion
because it omits a number of important variables that would allow one to actually judge the
performance of the school over the past two decades. For example, an insight into the grades
achieved by the students of the school as compared to average grades of students from other
schools, the job-market readiness of the students, or even the ranking of the university or college
that the students get into, would be helpful to support the claim that the school makes.

In conclusion, due to the above stated reasons, the argument lacks concrete evidence and fails to
convince the reader as to why the school does not need to make any substantial increase in the
school’s funding at this point in time. It is essential that one has access to a number of factors that
could help reach this recommendation. However, as stated, the argument seems more of a wishful
thinking, than being based in factual evidence.