The Ambiguous Editorial
A student reads a school newspaper editorial arguing that the cafeteria should extend lunch by fifteen minutes. The editorial cites a survey in which 68% of 200 respondents supported the change, notes that students report feeling rushed, and concludes that "the administration clearly does not care about student wellbeing." The student plans to write a response agreeing with the conclusion but challenging the reasoning. The teacher requires the response to identify at least one strength and one weakness in the editorial's argument and to avoid attacking the author personally.
1. Identify the editorial's strongest and weakest reasoning moves.
Read the worked answer
Strength: the survey provides concrete evidence of majority support among respondents, and the reported feeling of being rushed connects to a plausible mechanism (insufficient time to eat). This gives the argument an empirical footing rather than pure assertion.
Weakness: the leap from "the administration has not extended lunch" to "the administration does not care about wellbeing" is an unwarranted inference about motives. Many explanations are possible (scheduling, budget, supervision). The survey also has limits: 200 respondents out of an unknown population, and self-selected respondents may over-represent those who feel strongly. The editorial treats a contested inference as obvious.
2. How should the student frame the response to meet the teacher's constraints?
Read the worked answer
The student should concede the survey's evidentiary value explicitly ("The survey is a reasonable starting point because..."), then argue that the conclusion about motives outruns the evidence. The response should challenge the argument, not the writer: phrases like "the editorial assumes" rather than "the author is careless." Structuring the response as concession-then-critique satisfies the strength-and-weakness requirement and models fair-minded evaluation, which is likely what the teacher is assessing.