Mental health experts have observed that symptoms of mental illness are less pronounced in
many patients after group music therapy sessions, and job openings in the music-therapy
field have increased during the past year. Consequently, graduates from our degree program
for music therapists should have no trouble finding good positions. To help improve the
financial status of Omega University, we should therefore expand our music-therapy degree
program by increasing its enrollment targets.
The argument concludes that, to increase the financial status of the university, the university
should increase its enrollment targets for their degree program of music therapist as
symptoms of mental health decrease after music therapy. The argument is based on faulty
reasoning, as pointed out below.
Firstly, decrease in symptoms of mental illness symptoms has been attributed to music
therapy without any evidence. The decrease can be due to a number of different factors
other that music therapy. Hence, it cannot be verified that a causal relationship exist
between music therapy and decrease in symptoms rather than mere correlation. More
scientific approach under controlled environment and data from such experiments will be
required to reach this aspect of conclusion.
Secondly, if we are to assume that music therapy is effective for mental illness patients, that
does not necessarily mean it will give rise to significant job openings. An increase in
opportunity can still be not enough to accommodate additional graduates in the industry.
Therefore, more information such as the quantification of this increase in openings would
strengthen the argument without which the assumption is flawed.
Thirdly, the argument wrongly assumes that graduates from Omega university are
competent enough to fulfill the requirements of the openings in the music therapy industry.
There is no evidence of the graduates employment rates, average duration for securing jobs
in the relevant field, etc. Such information will support this claim.
Lastly, the argument states that increasing the enrollment targets will lead to improved
financial status. This is not necessarily true. Even with increased targets, the number of
students enrolling in the course every year may not increase due to lack of interest in the
field, availability of better opportunities in alternative industries, better return on investment
for education in a different degree, etc.
Overall, the argument is weak as it builds itself on flawed assumptions and incorrect
rationale. More information is required to support the assumptions in order to reach the
conclusion derived.
●
●
●
●
Substantially flawed
inconclusive information
unreasonably far-reaching conclusions.
This argument is neither sound nor persuasive.