In the preceding argument we find that the president of Grove College argues that adopting coeducation to the all-female college will increase the number of applications and enrollments to the college. However, the director opposes this view by saying that being an all-female education upholds the identity of the college. While both arguments may seem valid at first glance, upon scrutiny we can find that they are poorly reasoned and based on several questionable assumptions. Hence, We need more information regarding the college to support both claims.
To begin with, the president assumes that increase in the number of application and enrollments in other colleges after adopting coeducation will likely be the case in Grove College. We need more information about the two colleges to support this claim. Maybe the other all-female college has
…show more content…
The feasibility of the proposed plan is nowhere mentioned in the argument. In order to accommodate the increased applications and enrollments, sufficient seats should be available in the college first. Moreover, Hostel and accommodation facilities for the increased number of students also need to be given consideration. Without proper facilities to accommodate the increased demand, the plan would only cause inconveniences on both students’ and management's sides. Likewise, the competitiveness of the expected male candidates has to be predicted. If the males, for whatsoever reason, tend to be less competent than females, then a drastic change in enrollment seems unlikely. Had the author provided more information regarding the feasibility of the plan, the argument would have been a cogent case.
In sum, both the President and the Director of Grove College seem to put forward an illogical argument based on unsubstantial assumptions. Without proper evidence to support their claims, their arguments will likely convince few