Argument61 By Lucarl

lucarlUID: 2616426

简短总结作者思路：
Nationally, 1:5. à all students use daily
In Elyeria, 1:7
à sufficient, all could be proficient before they graduate
Conclusion: no more computers and other technology budget.

TOPIC: ARGUMENT61 - The following appeared in a report by the School District of Eyleria.

"Nationally, the average ratio of computers to students in kindergarten through grade 12 (K-12) is 1:5. Educators indicate that this is very good ratio. This means that across the country, all students have access to and can use computers daily in their classrooms. In Eyleria's K-12 schools, the ratio of computers to students is 1:7. This number is sufficient to ensure that all of Eyleria's students, by the time they graduate from high school, will be fully proficient in the use of computer technology. Thus, there is no reason to spend any of the schools' budget on computers or other technology in the next few years."
WORDS:490
TIME: 00:56:00
DATE: 2009-7-7 20:32:06

Based on two average ratio of computers to students, the arguer acclaimed that it is enough for students to fully handle the skills of using computers. However, the data failed to support the author as he or she expected.

As for the national average ratio, since different areas have different situations, it is not guaranteed that students in any area would be daily access to computers. In fact, in major cities, there will be no problem of no enough computers, because economy there is more developed, maybe children even have their own personal computers at home which means they even doesn't need to fight for the computers in school. Unfortunately, in regions where technology is not as developed as the major cities, students may keep a queue to get a touch of computers. So, quoting an average ratio throughout the whole country can not support the conclusion of the educators that all students are able to use computers everyday.

In Elyeria, which is a smaller area and in which therefore the 1:7 ratio could be more effective, however, it's hardly to expect students strictly allocate their time in using computers. It is entirely possible that some students would take the most time of computer because they are more skillful or sufficient in using them than others. But we can not blame them for occupying this technological resource, because the reasons vary. Maybe they are effective in operating the computers and others choose to step backward to watch their performances. This is about to happen especially when some students acquire the computer skills ahead of others, as the author claimed the students could only be proficient of using computers before graduation, which indicates that the students could not acquire the ability at the same time. Moreover, maybe children who seldom use computers are totally uninterested in them. Therefore, the time allocated for each student to use computer is hardly to be controlled, maybe we should provide the students enough computers ensuring them to use whenever they want, if allowed.

In his or her conclusion, the arguer suggested that no more budgets on computer and other technology should be arranged in the next few years. Even if the computers are enough, as the author expected, budget on other technology should not be involved in this argument. For instance, if the projectors are not enough, the recommendation of no more budgets on other technology will affect the teaching, because teachers need the projectors to illustrate the curriculum more vividly and therefore for students to understand faster. In sum, it would be a mistake to expand suggestion before providing the information of other technology.

To conclude, both the educators and the author expected the situation too optimistically, before acclaiming the 1:5 ratio is very good, investigation in different regions should be conducted, and, the author should be more careful in making recommendation on the budgets on computer and other technology in next few years