10. The conclusion in this argument is that the state legislature need not consider the
9 ]& D# X$ b4 I" |7 Q1 S: aviews of protesting students. To support this conclusion, the author points out that only
9 b4 o( B8 P" m/ _200 of the 12,000 students traveled to the state capitol to voice their concerns about 5 s% r) Q& ?( }6 `0 B
proposed cuts in college programs. Since the remaining students did not take part in this
5 a i: l1 b0 uprotest, the author concludes they are not interested in this issue. The reasoning in this " x% N% d! t P% e) z
argument is flawed for two reasons.
" ~# U6 }+ Q3 L First, the author assumes that because only one-tenth of the students took part in 1 l3 e- b' Z) X8 k! W1 l _) I
the protest, these students' views are unrepresentative of the entire student body. This ; D) O# n! Y ?( J$ g4 m8 J
assumption is unwarranted. If it turns out, for example, that the protesting students were
3 { d- \. M! K& u/ e" w) x* J/ I) n/ nrandomly selected from the entire student body, their views would reflect the views of
# ^+ d9 S$ v7 t. {the entire college. Without information regarding the way in which the protesting
7 ` T) U( l& {7 Astudents were selected, it is presumptuous to conclude that their opinions fail to reflect
* y! g1 | `, g; L8 A0 ?the opinions of their colleagues.5 w& W q% Z4 |( K2 ~( ^( z
Second, the author cites the fact that the remaining 12,000 students stayed on $ A/ j' u- Q0 C y
campus or left for winter break as evidence that they are not concerned about their 0 X0 U# [" P& ~; i5 h
education. One obvious rejoinder to this line of reasoning is that the students who did
( A- F+ T. T3 U. r' u8 q6 j \not participate did so when they that their concerns would be expressed by the % }5 P* z. y' @4 m A
protesting students. In any case, the author has failed to demonstrate a logical
. O; F5 f5 d- M4 N6 Cconnection between the students' alleged lack of concern and the fact that they either
0 d& u* N) I- Y% y+ q T R% tstayed on campus or left for winter break. Without this connection, the conclusion 9 M4 G p1 @3 ?
reached by the author that the remaining 12,000 students are not concerned about their
0 B& X; W) N( F% H( h' e8 \education is unacceptable.2 W( ^- r# J- u- T
As it stands, the argument is not well reasoned. To make it logically acceptable,
( N% V; j1 N; Y8 l( E; _the author would have to demonstrate that the protesting students had some ' y4 h6 }4 ~! p
characteristic in common that biases their views, thereby nullifying their protest as
3 T0 T# O# f" |4 N5 ~representative of the entire college. |