"It’s time that we as a nation accepted a basic — and seldom-mentioned — fact. You don’t need a degree (and certainly not an M.B.A.) to start a business and create jobs, nor is it even that helpful, compared with cheaper, faster alternatives.

If I were betting on the engines of future job creation, I wouldn’t put my money on college students cramming for tests and writing papers with properly formatted M.L.A.-style citations in order to bolster their résumés for careers in traditional professions and middle-management jobs in large corporate and government bureaucracies.

I’d put my money on the kids who are dropping out of college to start new businesses. If we want to get out of the jobs mess we’re in, we should hope that more will follow in their footsteps."

I think this article in the NY Times, entitled, "Will Dropout Save America?" by Michael Ellsberg (10/22/2011)  commits the fallacy of Hasty Generalization.  It is true that some dropouts have become incredible and successful pioneers (Jobs, Gates, Zuckerberg, ect.)  However, basing an argument on the fact that college degrees are no longer effective and that we should rely on the populous of dropouts to save our economy is a sweeping generalization only justified by the few geniuses (specific cases) that actually knew what they were doing upon dropping out.

Below is my phase three argument, in simplified and standard form:

P:  Academically speaking, one's GPA and LSAT are the two most important statistics when looking into law school.

P:  The GPA of a graduating student cannot be compared fairly (in a relative sense) with that of a student from a  different school.

P:  The LSAT is not arbitrarily unfair.

P:   GPA is not as reliable an indicator of competency as the LSAT.
P:  Success in the first year of law school directly correlates with success on the LSAT's.

---------------------
C:  The way law school admissions currently treat an applicant’s LSAT scores are completely warranted.

The LSAT is a comprehensive test that most applicants to law school take.  Similar to the SAT’s, the LSAT’s are a standardized and nationwide test, and part of the admissions process.  There are some people who think that this test is over emphasized, however the way law school admissions currently treat an applicant’s LSAT scores are completely warranted.  The LSAT’s, along with GPA and extracurriculars, are all factors considered in a potential candidate.  A student’s LSAT score should be the highest regarded part of this process.

Premises:

1)       The GPA of a graduating student can not be compared fairly with that of a student from a different school. [common knowledge]

a.       There are hundreds of different types of colleges and universities in the United States, and the world.

b.      Each institution designs its own unique curriculum.

c.       Each curriculum is constructed of courses run and taught by different professors.

2)       The LSAT is not arbitrarily unfair. [sourced]

a.       Studies show preparation time directly correlates with success.

b.      The average scores span less than 15 points between 28 different majors.

3)       Success in the first year of law school directly correlates between success on the LSAT’s. [sourced]

a.       Students who perform better on the LSATs on average had higher grades in his or her first year of school.

b.      Undergraduate GPA had a much weaker correlation to first year law school success.

4)       GPA is not as reliable an indicator of competency as the LSAT [common knowledge]

a.       All LSAT’s are comprehensive (multiple sections, writing, multiple choice)

b.      All LSAT’s given out at one particular time are the same, and scored the same.

c.       The test graders of the LSAT use a predetermined curve.

d.      GPA can be affected by grade inflation.

e.      Not all Institutions and/or professors have the same definition of an A.

f.        GPA can be affected by the curve, although some curves can be influenced by peers.

This is my tentative thesis statement and premises for my paper this semester.  I definitely think that it needs some more work, and maybe a few more premises to solidify the structure of the argument.  Any advice or comments are welcome!

L&CR: Argument Analysis (3)

For the sake of national security, this country cannot afford to retreat from the world. Its investment in the State Department and foreign aid helps advance peace and stability by feeding starving people, providing access to doctors and medicines, opening new markets, promoting democracy, curbing nuclear arms and strengthening allies with military and economic assistance. It also gives Washington leverage.


P1:  Its [United States] investment in the State Dept. & foreign aid advances peace & stability.
P2:  Investments provide access to new markets of doctors and medicines.
P3:  [implied:  the U.S. healthcare system is not efficient and needs some form of change/help]
P3:  It promotes democracy and curbs nuclear arms possession.
P4:  It gives the U.S. military and economic assistance, and leverage.
P5:  [implied:  the U.S. could use this help because of our spread out military as a result of the war on terror, the financial help as result of our massive deficit, and the leverage, as a result of falling out of favor with other countries due to military actions of the past decade.
 ______________
C:  This country [U.S.] cannot afford to retreat from the world.


This article was taken from an editorial in the New York Times, entitled, "No Time To Get Stingy," by Carlos Giacomo (10/08/2011).  I think this is a good example of a strong and fairly cogent inductive argument with several implied facts to help solidify the structure of the argument.  Anyone reading this editorial would have basic knowledge of our nation's foreign affairs, and current policy issues.  While the country seems divided on many issues today, especially in congress, both republicans and democrats will acknowledge that our heath care system needs some kind of change, our economy needs help, and any leverage and favor with allied countries is definitely something that is not overly abundant these days.  I think that public policy editorials are one of the most difficult venues for appearing unbiased, however, by pointing out problems and appealing for help instead of recommending an action, Giacomo does a fairly good job of presenting a moderate and generally acceptable article.