Argument174 【0706G－LOVEAW小组】第16次作业

小猫儿UID: 2297873

174.The following recommendation was made by the president and administrative staff of Grove College, a private institution, to the college's governing committee.

"We recommend that Grove College preserve its century-old tradition of all-female education rather than admit men into its programs. It is true that a majority of faculty members voted in favor of coeducation, arguing that it would encourage more students to apply to Grove. But eighty percent of the students responding to a survey conducted by the student government wanted the school to remain all female, and over half of the alumni who answered a separate survey also opposed coeducation. Keeping the college all-female, therefore, will improve morale among students and convince alumni to keep supporting the college financially."

1、  调查的可靠性，且现在校内只有女学生，不具代表性

2、  校友不支持男女同校不表示不进行财政资助
3、  不一定维持女校形式，可以设立女校分校和南校分校

The recommendation made in the argument of keeping the college all-female is dubious as it stands. I’ll detail it in the following.

In the first place, the two researches referred to in the argument lacks detail information to substantiate themselves. It is known that in the all-female college, the research among students can only cover female students, which can not represent all potential students for a college. It is possible that the girls are already used to the college without boys that they can not imagine the situation with coeducation, which makes them hastily and unilaterally concede the recommendation. It is also possible that the amount of respondents in the both researches that coincidentally those who oppose the recommendation are not involved in the process of the researches. Without ruling out these possibilities, I can not simply accept any results on basis of the two researches.

Even the researches are accepted which indicates that most alumni oppose the coeducation, the conclusion that they would not keep supporting the college financially can not be simply draw as is expresses in the argument. It is possible that the alumni have so deep a feeling for their Alma Mater that they will continue supporting the college financially even if the opposed situations take place in the college including coeducation. Moreover, chances are although some of the alumni refuse to keep on supporting the college, there are other alumni who have never support the college wishing to start to support the college from now on. Maybe these alumni are much more generous than the former ones. Without providing details about that, the arguer’s reasoning is impeachable at best.

In addition, even if coeducation can not be accepted anyway, it does not necessarily lead to the preserving of all-female, which excludes other solutions. To avoid coeducation’s taking place in the college, the college can easily founds another sub-college which merely includes boy students in it. In that case, neither the girls nor the alumni would be discontent with the still all-female college, which, at the same time, allows the college to expand the college scale and also increases the exchequer. Without taking such solutions into consideration, the arguer’s unilateral recommendation can hardly substantiate itself.

To sum up, the arguer hastily draws a recommendation on basis of dubious reasoning process. I can not simply accept the recommendation simply according to this argument.