Argumentative Analysis

The Approval of Private Institutions

Student’s Name:

Institutional Affiliation:

Date:

The Approval of Private Institutions

Evaluation of the Assertion Made by Save Our Schools and Australian Education Union.

I find the arguments presented by the union and lobby group with regards to the public announcement of the approvals to be baseless in that, they are not supported by any premise. However, the claims made by the government that the minister gave a green light towards the approval of the schools in December 2012 are based on the premise that a date was given. I find the claim to be unsupported based on the fact that despite mention the month when the nod was given, the mode of communication used and the precise dates were not mentioned. The argument is also inductive in reasoning as the premises given are only meant to support the statement but are not conclusive.

Analyzing the Arguments of the Minister’s Spokesperson

While the Education Minister’s spokesperson argument may be deductively legitimate and precise, he fails to support his statement with an evidence to prove that the announcement was made on the ministry’s website. He neither states the date of the web publication nor the address. His hard stance that the ministry did not deem it right to call for a press release on the matter is refutable if the fact that the issue was anticipated by the community and the projects were going to be supported by public funds through subsidies.

Analyzing Glenn Fowler’s Stance on the Approval of the Private Schools

Glenn Fowler’s bases his opinions on the premise that public funds are used ion subsidizing the costs of running private schools. His opinion can be refuted if it is true that the minister, Ms Burch, had given a go ahead to the approval in December. It can also be disapproved if records are available to prove that the announcement had been made on-line. Although he might be deductively valid and right in asserting that the schools are likely to get...