ARGUMENT144求拍！拍者都能上4.0！

luboxiludiUID: 2759582

This argument is well-presented at the first glance, yet, not thoroughly well-reasoned. By giving a investigation of 200 charitable organizations, the arguer makes a conclusion that people have ability to donate and the educational institutions are less in need of donations, all the claims that the arguer made seem logical.
However, when we stay calm and thinking carefully, we will find that the investigation of 200 charitable organizations is too vague to be formative. what is the percentage of all the 200 charitable organizations' donation number? Are they have an initial influence and unchangeable place in the donation field? Maybe the number of 200 is not a particularly large figure for the editorial make general claims. Moreover, the argument relies on the figures that donations of money to nonprofit groups increased by nearly 25 percent last year. The number is compared with the year before last year, maybe the world's economics in the year before last year met some problem, the charitors' assets were shrink seriously, so they donated very little money at that year. In addition, the editorial fails to consider the amount of donations of every chariors. If some of the chariors donated a large number of money, as a result of that the sum money is large, but is could not suggest that more people are willing and able to give money to charities.
Saying the funding for education is not a priority for most people, the author fails to consider the background of all the donators. It has the possible that many of the donators are people believe in religious and environmental preventers, and maybe some part of the donations are contributed by some religious issues or environmental club. Also, the government maybe published some new policies, inject more investment in the religious and environment field. Furthermore, this poll is just repersent a period phenomenon, it has some random charateristics, maybe next time the result of the same poll of these 200 charitable organizations is quite different from this one. The arguer assumes that what is true of this time's poll is not logical for the next time.
All in all, the conclusion made by the arguer seems logical as presented above, while before any final decisions are made about the result of poll, the arguer should evaluate a more powerful survey and take the randomness facts in consideration.