The President's Tuition-Freeze Op-Ed
The student newspaper publishes an op-ed by a university president arguing that the board should freeze tuition for the next academic year. The piece opens with a sophomore named Elena who works 30 hours a week and says she sometimes chooses between textbooks and groceries. The president cites one statistic: 'the average debt of our graduating seniors is $31,000.' Midway through, the president concedes that 'faculty raises are overdue' but argues that a tuition freeze and raises can both happen if the state increases its appropriation. The op-ed uses 'we' and 'our' throughout, refers to students as 'our children' once, and closes by inviting readers to attend next week's board meeting and sign a petition. The board vote is in ten days. The president has served for six years and previously supported a 4% tuition increase.
1. Analyze how the concession about faculty raises affects the president's ethos with two different audiences: faculty and students.
Read the worked answer
The concession can help and hurt. For faculty, admitting that raises are 'overdue' acknowledges a legitimate grievance and may make the president seem fair-minded; but the next clause makes raises conditional on state appropriation, which shifts responsibility and may read as a promise the president cannot control. For students, the concession may signal honesty, but it also introduces a competing cost just before asking them to support a freeze. The president's six-year record and previous support for a 4% increase complicate the ethos: the concession may look like a recent conversion rather than a long-standing commitment. I would judge the concession effective only if the op-ed explains how the state appropriation is plausible and why faculty raises need not come from tuition. Without that, it weakens the call for a freeze by making the budget seem zero-sum.
2. Identify one unstated assumption behind the $31,000 statistic and explain how it affects the argument.
Read the worked answer
The $31,000 figure assumes that average debt is a meaningful measure of tuition burden and that a freeze would materially reduce it. Averages can hide wide variation: students with no debt and students with very high debt can produce the same average, and the figure may include living expenses, not just tuition. The statistic also lacks a comparison, such as debt at peer institutions or before the president's tenure, so readers cannot tell whether $31,000 is high, low, or changing. If the argument uses the number to prove that tuition is unaffordable, it needs to show the mechanism: how much of the debt comes from tuition and how a freeze would affect the total. Otherwise the number is emotionally powerful but logically underdeveloped.
3. Evaluate the closing call to action. Consider audience, timing, and the president's institutional position.
Read the worked answer
The closing is specific and timely: a board meeting in ten days and a petition give readers a clear action. That specificity is a strength because op-eds often end with vague calls to 'get involved.' But the president's institutional position cuts both ways. An invitation from a president may seem like genuine access, or it may seem like a staged display of consultation before a vote the president already influences. The phrase 'our children' may also alienate independent students and parents who do not see the university as a parent. I would keep the meeting and petition but add one sentence naming what attendees will ask the board to do, and I would replace 'our children' with 'students.' The revision would preserve urgency while making the action seem less top-down and more concrete.