In my evaluation of the argument about; "A Call to Improve Campus Accessibility for the Mobility Impaired" by Manasi, she captivates the readers by illustrating how an injury to a college student left him overwhelmed at the challenges he faced getting around the campus at the University of Texas at Austin (UT) in a wheelchair. In my opinion, the writer argued her position by conducting personal interviews with permanent and temporary disabled students. Manasi, also gathers information for her analyses by conducting interviews with faculty members about the buildings and compliancy with the American Disabilities Act (ADA). I 'm supportive of her position and agree with her statements that the university should improve more resources in improving the accessibility to all buildings for all disabled students and staff.
In analyzing the quality of Manasi argument she focuses on presenting the reader with a combination of logic and emotional reasoning. In my opinion, I interpreted that the logical reasoning in Manasi argument was a way for the reader to associate how easily a handicap facility can go unnoticed by an ambulatory person. A handicap facility only seems to be notice when someone ends up temporary or permanently handicap. Mansai illustrates that being permanently handicap is not a choice and that many people can fall in the ranks of being handicap themselves by accident. Manasi, also exploit that the improving of handicap facilities will ultimately be used by all individuals at some point or another. In my opinion, I believe Manasi used emotional reasoning to give the reader an idea of how difficult it was to travel from building to building at the (UT) campus without automatic doors or bathroom accesibility. Manasi, utilizes the word discrimination and hardship to define the suffering that the mobility impaired students and faculty members experience while maneuvering around the campus. I believe Manasi established her own creditability because she was subjected to the same hardships of accessibility on the campus as her peers. Manasi, believed that if more efforts and resources were available to the university (ADA) that the quality of life and the equal opportunity to succeed for the mobility impaired would increase significantly. In one example Manasi, writes how she enrolled in a biology lab and wasn't able to complete the course because the lab facilities were not appropriate for the mobility impaired. Manasi, ended up dropping the course and the major because of the lack of independence the biology lab offered to the mobility impaired.
In conclusion, I would be supportive of Manasi; "A Call to Improve Campus Accessibility for the Mobility Impaired". However, in my opinion, I believe the mobility impaired students and staff should have evaluated the university mobility impaired facilities before they accepted the offer. In some of the arguments presented by Manasi, I felt she was biased at times because of her frustration with the accessibility facilities. Manasi, however, did make some good points that the facilities priority should not only be based on the permanent disabled students and staff but the temporary personal as well. In one of my main reasons in supporting Manasi, is that it should be the university moral obligation that each student should be given the equal opportunity to achieve the best quality of life and education they have to offer while attending there university.