Argument 64 酒香

Boris21UID: 2915545

The following appeared in a memo from the Dean of the College of Education at Omni State University. “Only seven of our state's high schools offer even one course in Latin, but over 80 percent of the graduates who study Latin at those seven schools enroll in college. Furthermore, a recent study shows that students who have mastered Latin perform much better in logic and critical thinking. Thus, in order to increase the percentage of our high school students who graduate from college as well as to ensure that they receive a better education in critical thinking, Omni State University should begin an intensive program to prepare our future teachers to teach high school Latin."



In this statement the dean of the college of Education at Omni state university tries to convince us that it is helpful in developing critical thinking and general learning skills for students in school to study Latin with many plausible argument and proposes to start an intensive program of Latin to prepare teachers who can teach this subject in school. His argument seems convincing, but after careful examination we can find many flaws in it.

To begin with, the result of the recent study which proves the students mastering Latin is better in logic and critical thinking is open to doubt. There is no clear relevance between Latin study and logic. We have many method to test a student`s logic and critical thinking, e.g. GRE AW test, if the results is concluded from the fact that students who finish the test better are the one who study Latin, he establish a casual relationship between them. The test only shows that the students are good at the things tested, but it surely does not include the knowledge of Latin. If he wants to use it as a argument, he ought to prove this relevance.

On the second hand, the schools in Omni state which offer Latin course has a high enrolling rate may not be caused by their curriculum. Perhaps these seven schools are the best schools in the state and they always have a high enrollment in college, at the same time they have teachers who can teach Latin. So it is not because of Latin course that they obtain a bigger number of enrollment, but can be explained by many other factors.

Furthermore, we are not inform what the percentage of enrollment to college in other high schools. If the 80 percentage is only at average level, then the dean falsely conclude that the Latin makes a difference. And if the 80 percentage is far lower than the average statistics, then this fact serves a negative role in this argument.
Moreover, the study only illustrates that Latin helps students in schools, but how it affect their college study is not mentioned in the argument. If the Latin learners all feel difficult to finish the college work, at the same time others show no worry about that. Then we should think about the whether we should set the Latin course in schools
Granted that it is the Latin courses give the student a better education in logic and critical thinking, there is still no evidence that more teachers of Latin can improve the situation. What the future teachers are lectured and their orientation should be taken into account, only the increase in number may not solve the problem.
There may not be a necessity of Omni state university to prepare more Latin teachers. No evidence shows that the state is in shortage of Latin teacher and they are in great demand.

In sum, the author fails to persuade us that it is necessary to prepare more future teachers of Latin in Omni state university. To better his argument he requires to offer the statistics of enrollment of other schools in their state, the relevance between Latin study and critical thinking, the performance of those who studied Latin in college and give the concrete information of the demand of Latin teacher. Unless these are provided we cannot see the necessity of his proposal.


第一次在时间内写完·······