Recently, there have been discussions about ending Grove College's century-old tradition of all-female education by admitting male students into our programs. At a recent faculty meeting, a majority of faculty members voted in favor of coeducation, arguing that it would encourage more students to apply to Grove. However, Grove students, both past and present, are against the idea of coeducation. 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 alumnae who answered a separate survey also opposed coeducation. Therefore, we recommend maintaining Grove College's tradition of all-female education. We predict that keeping the college all-female will improve morale among students and convince alumnae to keep supporting the college financially.
The argument claims that after surveying about the changes in the college policy in order to admit men in addition to women, most of the students and alums are in opposition to this view. Therefore, continuing present condition of the Grove college is more efficient in all aspects. Stated in this way, the argument fails to mention several key factors on the basis of which a thorough evaluation is possible. The conclusion of the argument relies on assumptions for which there is no clear evidence. Hence, the argument is unconvincing and conveys several flaws.
First, the argument readily assumes that the survey conducted by the student government is plausible, and the results are reliable. This statement is a stretch and is not substantiated in any way. It is possible that the survey conducted by the student government, because of their tendency to maintain the present situation, is biased. There are a lot of examples which show that this assumption is fallacious. It is probable that the student government members do not want to lose their predominance. If men enter the college, they should be part of the student government which is not satisfactory for women. In addition to this, in the argument, it was mentioned that the separate surveys were used in order to evaluate students' and alums' comments about co-educated college. It is not professional, and the results of such a survey are not reliable. A unique survey must be used to have an integral assessment about the consequences. Therefore, the above mentioned survey is not a good mean to judge the students preferences. In addition, the university services, itself, could conduct a unified survey to have reliable results on the basis of which the judgment is possible.
The second flaw that crosses my mind is that the percent mentioned by the argument is not applicable for a convincing judgment. This is again a very weak assumption as the argument does not mention any information regarding the total number of students and the percent who responds to the survey in comparison to the all. To illustrate, imagine a situation that the total number of students in the college is about 3000, and the number of students who attended the survey was 100. In this situation, the total number of students who disagree with the coeducation policy is about 80 which is less than 30 percent of all the students who could participate in the survey. In fact, the argument does not mention morsel of information about the total number of students. If such a data had been shown, then the author would have sounded a bit more convincing. Besides, if the argument provides a correlation between the responded and total number of students, the argument could have been strengthened even further.
Last but not least, the argument assumed that the mono education college is a better place in order to enhance students' morality. There are different factors by which community's morals can be improved. A college is a sample of a community which should be framed according to its criteria. It is possible that, in a co-educated college, the presence of different sexes helps students to be more prudent in their behavior. By this, they are restricted to norms which can help them to improve their morality. For instance, in a female college, students are free to talk about everything. But, in co-educated colleges they are not allowed to talk about everything in public. This is a good mean which assists them to be morally well-prepared for their presence in the society. Therefore, it is not definite that morality can be achieved through mono-educated colleges.
To sum up what I have outlined above, the argument is flawed and therefore unconvincing. It could be strengthened if the author mentioned all the relevant facts. In order to assess the merit of a certain decision, it is tenable to consider the entire contributing factor. In this particular case, the administration of the survey, the total number of students, and factors affect morality are three main defects that should be explained better. Without this information, the argument is unsubstantiated and open to debate.