Argument 125【六人作文小组】第2周第3次作业

sneakerliuUID: 2481691

TOPIC: ARGUMENT125 - The following is a recommendation from the president of Appleby College.

"Whereas Appleby College holds class reunions every five years, Edelston College holds annual reunions for all classes, during which Edelston's alumni are treated to banquets, lectures, and student performances, enhancing their loyalty to the college and their willingness to donate money. Edelston College receives most of its alumni donations during or shortly after these reunions. Therefore, the best way for Appleby to increase its alumni donations is to offer similar reunion activities and to have each graduating class hold annual reunions."
WORDS: 473          TIME: 上午 12:30:00          DATE: 2009-1-14


The president of Appleby College (AC) avers that in order to enhance donations from alumni, the college should introduce a similar policy of holding class reunions every year based on Edelston College's (EC) success of donations and sever other reasons. Seems reasonable the ratiocination is, however, after close scrutiny of its reasons, many are groundless yet unconvincing.

To begin with, the author asserts a annual reunion policy will increase donations. However, the truth may not lie around the reunion policy. But many other reasons such as worse economic situation of alumni and the number alumni may contribute to the college's less donations, both problems are impossible to be solved by the policy related to alumni reunion. That is to say, as there is lack of research of why the donations from alumni are dissatisfied, it is too hastily to conclude a annual reunion policy will work as the author wishes.

Furthermore, it is also debatable whether EC's annual policy indeed contributes to its donations, or possibly hurts it. There is no evidence that an annual reunion increased the loyalty as one may doubt it is too frequent for alumni to come back schools, which may hurt the loyalty once the alumni feel boring. Additionally, there is no evidence indicates any relationship between loyalty and the willing to donate. Albeit the EC receives most of its donations during and after the reunions, we can hardly count these on the reunion policy. The reunions are merely the chances for alumni to donate but not ones to decide donating. If there exist few reunions, it is equally possible that the alumni will donate much more one time or send the money when they are free and we may not see a lose of donations in that case. Lastly, the author also overlooks the cost of banquets, lectures and student performance, which would offset the donations. After taking into considering all these conditions, the annual reunion policy may not be so effective as the author suggests.

Lastly, even if one were to concede that the reunion policy works in EC. Doubts still remain as whether it will be so effective in AC. The author provides little evidence to suggest the similarity between both universities and its alumni. It is highly possible that the alumni of EC are richer than those of AC. Or perhaps, the location of EC is more convenient for alumni to come, which makes it feasible to hold annual reunions for EC, however, not for AC. Without any related research, the AC is very hard to duplicate EC's success in donations simply by a similar reunion policy.

In sum, to better bolster the author's suggestion, research of the reasons of the fewer donations from alumni is necessary. The real effects of EC's annual reunion policy and its feasibility in AC should also be studied.