Overview
Note: In this handout the examples refer to the article “Two-Year Colleges Can’t Absorb
Further Cuts Without Turning Students Away,” by Amy Kinsel, Professor of History,
Shoreline Community College, published in the Olympia Newswire, January 27, 2010.
However, the basic ideas apply to any persuasive piece of writing.
In this lesson we discussed how to connect the evaluation of specific assumptions to the
overall claim about the author’s argument. This involved adding explanation of two key
points:
1. How does the individual assumption relate to her thesis? (This can often be
figured out by asking how important it is for her thesis: Very, somewhat or not
very important.)
2. How does the assumption make her argument persuasive or unpersuasive?
By the way—in the examples below, the emphasis is on “good” assumptions (ones the
author of the paper agrees with) because in general the class found the assumptions
reasonable. However, the method is the same whether you are agreeing or disagreeing
with her assumptions: Say what the assumption is, say why you agree or disagree with it,
say how it relates to her thesis, and say why it makes her overall argument persuasive or
unpersuasive.
The basic thesis for most of these examples would be: Kinsel’s evidence is good (SRR)
and her assumptions are true or reasonable, so her argument is persuasive.
Examples
Sentences that link the individual assumption to her thesis are in bold. Sentences that
explain why her argument is or is not persuasive are in italics.
Kinsel assumes that borrowing money to pay for school seems too risky to low-income
students. This is a good assumption because low-income students can’t be sure of their
ability to repay the loan. Also, if you’re low-income, you’re more likely to miss a
payment because you need the money for something more essential (food, housing, etc.).
If you miss a payment, then you have penalties and that makes it more expensive, and
things begin to spiral out of control. Also, simply being a student makes it hard to repay a
loan because it reduces your employability and time you can work, and adds stress to
your life. This assumption is important for her thesis, because if it were not true,
then it might be possible to deal with the budget cuts using the high tuition/high aid
model proposed by UW President Emmert. But it is a sound assumption, and therefore
this part of her argument is persuasive.
Another of Kinsel’s assumptions is that higher ed cuts were felt more deeply at CTCs
than anywhere else. While it’s difficult to say for sure whether this is true, it does seem
like a reasonable assumption. It’s not that the 4-year schools didn’t feel the cuts, but
because CTCs were designed for low-income students, they would be likely to have more
difficulty dealing with those cuts. Although this this claim is not so important to her
argument (even if 4-year schools were hurt as badly, she would still have strong
reasons not to cut the budget) it still shows that her assumptions are generally
reasonable, which is essential to any convincing argument.
An alternative approach is to discuss multiple assumptions simultaneously, as in the
following (this paragraph is somewhat vague, but it illustrates the general idea):
Both these assumptions are good ones—either definitely true or at least reasonable. This
is typical of Kinsel’s argument overall. Whether she is talking about statewide impacts or
her own students, the budget or tuition, she is careful to base her argument on sound
assumptions. Because of this her reasoning is strong, making her argument persuasive.
Kinsel claims that financial aid is designed to help traditional-aged, full-time students,
though she does not support the claim. This is a reasonable assumption because the
FAFSA [standard government form for applying for financial aid] is based around how
much your parents make, showing that the expectation of parental assistance is basic to
the way that aid is distributed. This assumption is important to her thesis because it is
part of showing that a high tuition/high aid model won’t work. If financial aid (i.e.
loans) worked for more CTC students, it would be possible to use that model, and so
the budget cuts might not be so bad. In this case, too, the assumption is valid, so this
part of her argument is also based on sound reasoning.
She also assumes that if you raise tuition at 4-year schools, some of those students will
come to the CTCs. This is a good assumption because they can get the same classes they
would take at a university, but for a lower cost. I assume that many people will choose
the lower cost option, all other things being equal. This assumption also helps to prove
her point that the high tuition/high aid model won’t work because of the indirect
effects on CTC students. Although this is a less important assumption for her overall
thesis, it helps to show that she bases her argument on a valid foundation, again making
it persuasive.