The article Why free tuition helps all the wrong students firmly presents the point of view related to the correlation between the availability of education and the amount of not engaged students being enrolled in the university (Lau, 2016). It uses multiple pieces of evidence to support its statements, such as the calculus of the budget, the Canadian Federation of Students’ decisions, and the costs of regular tuition fees. However, throughout the whole article, there is no evidence presented that would address the issue of “wrong students” in the universities specifically, as the author presents his reflections as subliminal evidence instead.
Primarily, the beginning of the article is contradictory due to the use of insufficient argumentation. The author mentions the research by the Canadian Federation of Students that demonstrates the need for free tuition for undergraduate students and uses it as a back-up for his main claim about the irrelevance of governmental support directed to the cost of studies. According to Logical criticism, thesis and argumentation should not be contradictory due to the purpose of supporting each other. However, the research information that the author provides directly contradicts his main claim. While including the information about the research, Lau addresses that its findings were predictable, as he verbalizes: “to the surprise of no one” (Lau, 2016). This way, the author includes a mocking tone in his writing, which does not work as sufficient data in the context of counterarguments. Not only did he use the information based on the research that, in fact, contradicts his claims, but he also did not specifically oppose it in any other way rather than by mocking it. Hence, he did not succeed in presenting his point of view and supporting his thesis effectively through objective evidence, utilizing the tools of verbal persuasion, and adding emotional shades of meaning to his arguments. Similarly, the writer included a sarcastic tone in part: “But governments as a rule are happy to overpay” (Lau, 2016). It is another supporting evidence of his strategy of making his point of view appealing to the audience through the manipulative and persuasive techniques of narration. Despite the possible impact on the perception of the claims’ reliability, the emotional shades of meaning cannot be regarded as solid arguments or objective proof, as it does not provide any supporting information except for the author’s personal opinion on the matter.
Secondarily, the major part of the article focuses specifically on the Ministry’s decision regarding the tuition for families with middle and low incomes. Although the writer’s main claim is related to these factors, they are presented simply as facts. Lau measuredly describes the approval of free tuition and includes multiple events that have occurred throughout the process. Through the sentences such as “Kathleen Wynne announced,” ”Under the Ontario Student Grant,” and “according to the Ministry of Finance,” the author attempts to increase the sense of the reliability of the article (Lau, 2016). However, there is still an issue of the lack of proper argumentation throughout the paragraphs. As Lau describes the chronology of the Canadian Federation of Students’ success in requesting the funding, he lists the events and quotes the statements related to the reasoning behind the decision to lower the fees. Nonetheless, since his core argumentation is opposite to the claims of the Canadian Federation of Students, his way of structuring the supposed argumentation does not correspond to the principles of objective and justified debates that are based on prior research. Although Lau presents a decent amount of research related to the way the Ministry decided to implement the changes related to the grants and interest-free loans, it does not support nor correlate with his main point of standing against this idea.
Finally, the writer forsakes the simple description of the chronology of events with the brief involvement of sarcastic remarks and moves to the main justification of his point of view. Instead of referencing the research or bringing up solid arguments in favor of his opposing view, Lau repeatedly uses the persuasive technique of posing a question to the audience as a way of forming a thesis. In part “What happens when costly services like university education are provided for free or at a steep discount? Invariably, there will be overconsumption,” the author turns the facts and research mentioned earlier into a question and then answers it according to his beliefs without further relevant justification (Lau, 2016). This format affects the reader’s perception of the article’s reliability by making the claims of the writer look like obvious answers to the question. However, in reality, the argumentation related to the introduced overconsumption and “wrong students” does not expand further than simplistic persuasive claims that reflect anything but the research-based information and evidence to the statement. In part, “Marginal enrollment from eliminating tuition fees will likely come from unmotivated, lower-ability students, and in less practical programs like theatre history or equity studies,” the author presents his own predictions and guesses as a piece of relevant evidence to his main point (Lau, 2016). Following Factual criticism, binary and unsupported argumentation generalizes the content and does not provide the relevant proof. Thus, Lau makes assumptions about the socio-economic background of various students and its impact on their worth and proficiency as potential members of a higher education community. Essentially, although his claim verbally targets the modification of fees, the real focus is centered on the students from low-income families. However, throughout the whole work, there is no evidence presented that would draw a correlation between the income of a person and their credibility and efficiency as a university student. Hence, the author based the supposedly counterarguments on his own biases and prejudices instead of investing in relevant research within a mentioned field.
In the end, the whole body of the article does not correspond to the basic standards of relevance due to the lack of justified argumentation. The research results included in the piece of writing directly contradict the main thesis stated by Lau, which weakens the reliability of the author’s point of view. Additionally, a big part of the article consists of a simplistic description of the chronology of events related to the tuition fee reform. General description without sufficient counterarguments and thorough analysis cannot be relevant in the context of academic work. Furthermore, the author’s main arguments were solely based on his personal opinion and prejudice towards the lower-income class. Thus, the thesis originated from the stereotypes related to the concept of “wrong” or unmotivated students coming from such backgrounds, which does not correlate with any research evidence that had been shown within this article. As there is no single evidence used to support this prejudice, the narrative of the article can be identified as irrelevant and unreliable.
Reference
Lau, M. (2016). Why free tuition helps all the wrong students. Financial Post. Web.