23. This speaker draws the conclusion that there is no need to substantially increase
3 r: x/ l( q' A: F/ e7 T+ ]funding for Einstein High School. To support this conclusion, the speaker claims that
8 @2 T" R- m4 R" F( k8 YEinstein has improved its educational efficiency over the past 20 years, even though
. U) ]8 l& J N2 w3 u( hfunding level s have remained relatively constant. His evidence is that two-thirds of
: l+ ^& L5 _' ?" z* _/ sEinstein's graduates now go on to college, whereas 20 years ago only half of its students / ^) [- X0 Q6 K
did so. This argument suffers from several critical problems.
" e$ x* x. D I To begin with, we must establish the meaning of the vague concept "educational 0 j6 E( I n. b( c: I+ p
efficiency." If the term is synonymous with the rate of graduation to college, then the . t" {5 {+ S( E i# X+ c) O
statistics cited would strongly support the argument. But, normally we are interested in 3 I5 r+ V& d& h, F! {& ^
something more than just the numbers of students who go on to college from a high
8 i- {8 j6 {7 P: K: @) nschool; we also want to know how well the school has prepared students for a / ^* d+ }/ l+ {
successful college experience—that is, whether the school has provided a good 1 ]- w5 q" y9 e5 N/ N; u+ Z
secondary education. Thus, for the speaker the term "educational efficiency" must
. w: X# Z+ k0 P& q5 dessentially carry the same meaning as "educational quality."
2 b0 w# M! a* j. m/ w4 M Given this clarification, one of the speaker's assumptions is that the rate of ! T! O8 I% Y! [+ [$ ~4 ]% i
graduation to college has increased because Einstein is doing a better job of educating
9 m5 S% U1 G* gits students. However, the fact that more Einstein graduates now go on to college might
$ _3 e5 W, b% X. S" p8 C# esimply reflect a general trend. And the general trend might have less to do with - i; S/ |5 t$ H+ h7 h% A5 A. y
improved secondary education than with the reality that a college degree is now the 2 c0 U1 ]! \4 l# i: P
standard of entry into most desirable jobs.4 N9 h: P- P! ?) D" o$ P3 o
But even if the quality of education at Einstein had improved, would this be a
8 G- X0 }( T$ ~$ {compelling reason to deny Einstein additional funding? I don't think so. It is possible 9 k1 X( G |( A7 q l1 ]
that the school has managed to deliver better education in spite of meager funding. 7 m! S2 ~# Q$ K# a1 T* k1 G
Teachers may be dipping into their own pockets for supplies and other resources 0 B( a" r1 x, f* @1 I8 F& u
necessary for doing their job well. Perhaps the quality of education at Einstein would 2 x. }( P/ Z3 O% w6 |# x
improve even more with additional financial support.8 H+ n9 ^8 ^4 p( z, R' z; Q
In sum, this argument does not establish the conclusion that additional funding for
- o% o" h* U. lEinstein is unnecessary. To do so, the speaker would have to provide evidence that the
+ L L1 ^2 r% Q/ _% H/ B6 Rquality of education at Einstein has improved. This could be done by examining student
" F) }7 R3 k! W1 O: V' Massessment scores or by tracking students through their college careers to see how many ! h I6 [6 W/ m3 |' ~) v; _
successfully graduate and find jobs. In addition, the speaker would also have to show
3 v( Z: V9 j% s4 h' hthat Einstein is doing a good job with adequate financial support, and not merely in
8 J- I/ q# M5 H( V ]( G+ mspite of insufficient funding. |