When it comes to the subject of education, oftentimes many people are skeptical as to whether an institution is basically going to take their money or give them the instruction they expect. In our society today, we see that the cost of living is rising ever so slightly each and every year. With that, it costs colleges big and small far more to provide students with the educational resources that they need. These resources can consume anything from leisure activities to housing opportunities and even providing the highest quality professors. Correspondingly, this leads to the rising cost of education (tuition). Unfortunately, there are several other matters far more important than providing for trivial things such as leisure activities which
…show more content…
Correspondingly, this expresses an appeal to the masses as it plays on our attitudes and emotions of that you have to work hard to gain the money that you get. In our society today, money is a sensitive subject as the cost of living today is high and people struggle from paycheck to paycheck to just make it by. We do not like to see people not having to work for their money when others work a vast amount of time for even little pay. Furthermore, the argument ends with rhetoric and an example of ethos when it reacts to the statement mentioned above about adding more work by saying “That’s …show more content…
In this case, the conclusion is stated in terms of saying that budget cutting matters are often based on bad reasoning and insufficient information leading to compromising the quality and productivity in education in terms of reducing faculty numbers. It was instead said that we “should pursue measures that reduce costs and protect our core, not unduly compromising the quality, production, and revenue generation to which faculty are central.” However, the previous statement is an example of using rhetoric by trying to persuade us to not cut teachers when they are truly important to all educational matters. Correspondingly, the argument consists of a naturalistic fallacy that says “Too many people, it makes senses that faculty should be major targets for savings.” This is based on the idea that instead of making other cuts campus wide which most often take place now, that budget cutting matters should also be placed on faculty as well which are the major costs to any institution. However, the previous statement along with the following “They share widespread beliefs that higher education has high labor costs and faculty are the principal labor cost driver. They reason that to achieve major savings, you address the major costs,” is an appeal to consensus. Here the information is held to be true in terms of saying that everyone believes the same idea. However,
Correspondingly, this expresses an appeal to the masses as it plays on our attitudes and emotions of that you have to work hard to gain the money that you get. In our society today, money is a sensitive subject as the cost of living today is high and people struggle from paycheck to paycheck to just make it by. We do not like to see people not having to work for their money when others work a vast amount of time for even little pay. Furthermore, the argument ends with rhetoric and an example of ethos when it reacts to the statement mentioned above about adding more work by saying “That’s …show more content…
In this case, the conclusion is stated in terms of saying that budget cutting matters are often based on bad reasoning and insufficient information leading to compromising the quality and productivity in education in terms of reducing faculty numbers. It was instead said that we “should pursue measures that reduce costs and protect our core, not unduly compromising the quality, production, and revenue generation to which faculty are central.” However, the previous statement is an example of using rhetoric by trying to persuade us to not cut teachers when they are truly important to all educational matters. Correspondingly, the argument consists of a naturalistic fallacy that says “Too many people, it makes senses that faculty should be major targets for savings.” This is based on the idea that instead of making other cuts campus wide which most often take place now, that budget cutting matters should also be placed on faculty as well which are the major costs to any institution. However, the previous statement along with the following “They share widespread beliefs that higher education has high labor costs and faculty are the principal labor cost driver. They reason that to achieve major savings, you address the major costs,” is an appeal to consensus. Here the information is held to be true in terms of saying that everyone believes the same idea. However,