The following recommendation was made by the president and administrative staff of Grove College, a private institution, to the college's governing committee.

"We recommend that Grove College preserve its century-old tradition of all-female education rather than admit men into its programs. It is true that a majority of faculty members voted in favor of coeducation, arguing that it would encourage more students to apply to Grove. But 80 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. Keeping the college all female will improve morale among students and convince alumnae to keep supporting the college financially."

Write a response in which you examine the stated and/or unstated assumptions of the argument. Be sure to explain how the argument depends on these assumptions and what the implications are for the argument if the assumptions prove unwarranted.


In a letter to the governing committee of Grove College, the president and administrative staff recommend that the institution remain exclusive to women as opposed to opening admissions to men. The authors lean on results from two surveys that, together, indicate that both students and alumnae generally wish for the school to remain all-female. However, before coming to appreciate and adopt this recommendation, it is essential to understand the authors’ assumptions.

Citing that eighty percent of students polled wish for the school to remain all-female as support for their recommendation, the authors erroneously assume, without providing evidence, that this figure is representative of the broader campus population. For a sample group to adequately represent a population, it must be considerable in size and characteristic of that population. However, it is possible that the survey was sent only students who were known to the survey creators to hold similar opinions to those of the president and administrative staff. It is possible, too, that the survey was sent in a busy period at school, perhaps during exams, and only a miniscule number of students were able to complete the survey. If either of these scenarios turn out to be factual, the authors’ recommendation is significantly weakened.

Furthermore, when citing the survey results, the authors fallaciously assume that respondents were honest when polled. While it is conceivable that most people tend to be more truthful than not, there could have been many factors at play that influenced respondents to answer, at least inadvertently, dishonestly. Perhaps, for example, respondents were aware of the desired survey outcomes of the researchers and answered in ways that they thought would be pleasing to the researchers. Likewise, it is plausible that respondents gave answers that they deemed to be socially desirable but were not entirely truthful, which is especially likely if the surveys were not conducted anonymously. If either of these conditions are met, then the survey results are rendered illegitimate and cannot support the authors’ recommendation.

Finally, in the authors’ concluding remarks, they make the implicit assumption that their proposed course of action, keeping the institution all-female, is the only way to improve student morale and persuade alumnae to continue providing financial support. This assumption is, of course, particularly weak because the authors do not provide evidence that this course of action is the only way to bring about the aforementioned desired results. However, there are, in fact, various alternative measures that could be taken that could also achieve these results. To improve student morale, for example, the school could consider implementing a second “reading week” or have emotional support animals at the library during exam times. Likewise, there are various ways in which the school could continue to benefit from the largess of alumnae; the school could name areas of the campus after the most munificent former students. In any case, if there are found to be viable alternative courses of action that could bring about the desired results the authors seek, then the recommendation is compromised.

In conclusion, simply citing evidence does not substantiate a claim, and there is, in most cases, more than one way to achieve a desired effect. If the authors are able to prove that data were collected fairly, respondents were truthful in their answers, and keeping the school all-female is the only sure-fire way to keep student morale high and maintain donations from alumnae, then the recommendation may be strengthened. Until then, however, the authors’ recommendation remains unpersuasive at best and specious at worst.