The following article appeared in a recent issue of a college newspaper.

“Among all students who graduated from Hooper University over the past five years, more physical science majors than social science majors found permanent jobs within a year of graduation. In a survey of recent Hooper University graduates, most physical science majors said they believed that the prestige of Hooper University’s physical science programs helped them significantly in finding a job. In contrast, social science majors who found permanent employment attributed their success to their own personal initiative. Therefore, to ensure that social science majors find permanent jobs, Hooper University should offer additional social science courses and hire several new faculty members who already have national reputations in the social sciences.”

In the above article which was published in the recent issue of a college newspaper the first argument held by the arguer is that more physical science students than social science students from Hooper University found permanent jobs within a year of graduation. The second argument is in context to the survey which was conducted in Hooper University in which physical science majors believed that the prestige of the university helped them to find jobs and on the contrary social science majors found permanent jobs through their own initiative. There is a recommendation made by the arguer that in order to ensure permanent jobs for social science students Hooper University should run more social science courses and even hire new staff of national reputation in the same field.

While making the first argument the arguer has not stated the exact percentage of physical science majors who got permanent jobs and also the percentage of social science majors who did not get permanent jobs. The arguer has not stated the reason for the low percentage. It is possible that this was the lowest period ever of social science majors in getting permanent jobs and otherwise they were getting placed better. Also the arguer has not mentioned whether there has been a decline in the sectors offering jobs to social science majors or their demand in the outside world has declined considerably.

In the second argument the number of students who underwent the Hooper University survey has not been given by the arguer and it is possible that the survey was conducted probably in the year when social science students were not nicely placed in permanent jobs. The arguer also fails to mention the earlier performance of the social science students in getting permanent jobs. The arguer also states that the prestige of Hooper University helped the physical science students to get permanent jobs which means that instead of marks they relied more on the reputation of the institute they were studying in but on the contrary social science students got permanent jobs based on their caliber.

The recommendation made by the arguer to introduce new staff and new courses are absolutely baseless, as neither from the study nor from the survey it is evident that social science majors need new courses or new staff for better performance. The arguer has not been successful in determining that social science majors are academically weaker than physical science majors. Also the arguer has mentioned the need to hire new faculty members of national repute, but neither from the study nor survey has it been made been clear that because of this reason social science students were getting less permanent jobs. We are not sure from the above article whether it is the dearth of jobs in the market, the weak academic performance of social science majors or bad faculty of the university which is responsible for the less permanent job placements of social science majors.

The arguer has not been successful in proving the relevance of his recommendation. The arguer should provide us with more convincing facts.