Editing an Attendance-Policy Argument in the College Newspaper
A student newspaper at a Rohtak college is editing an opinion piece on the college's new attendance policy. The policy raises the minimum attendance from 65% to 75% and introduces a ₹500 fine for each shortfall below 75%, unless the student has a medical certificate. The draft contains this sentence:
'The new attendance rule will destroy the academic atmosphere of the college because last year 38% of students had attendance below 75%, and several top scorers were among them.'
The editor's note says: 'This is a strong argument; keep it.' A second editor disagrees: 'The statistic does not prove the rule will destroy the academic atmosphere; it only shows that the rule will affect many students, including some top scorers.'
The paper must publish a 150-word editorial. The team also has a letter from a student claiming: 'If the college cared about merit, it would not fine students at all.'
1. Identify the logical flaw in the draft sentence and explain why the second editor is right.
Read the worked answer
The draft commits a non sequitur: the premise is about how many students would be affected, but the conclusion is about the rule destroying the academic atmosphere. The statistic establishes scale and potential unfairness; it does not establish the predicted effect on teaching, learning or academic culture.
The argument also relies on an unstated causal link: that penalising students with low attendance-including top scorers-will necessarily damage academics. That link is not defended. It is possible that the fine improves attendance, or that it mainly affects students with legitimate reasons, or that it has no measurable academic effect. The word 'destroy' also overstates the conclusion.
The second editor is right because the evidence supports a narrower claim: a large share of students, including strong students, will be affected. It does not support the stronger claim that the academic atmosphere will be destroyed.
2. Rewrite the sentence so that it makes a defensible claim without the flaw, using the same statistic. Explain what you changed and why.
Read the worked answer
A defensible rewrite:
'Because 38% of students had attendance below 75% last year, including several top scorers, the fine will affect a large and academically strong section of the student body; before enforcing a flat penalty, the college should publish data on how many of those absences had unavoidable causes.'
What changed:
- The causal claim ('will destroy the academic atmosphere') is replaced by a claim about scope and impact, which the statistic actually supports.
- The absolute word 'destroy' is removed.
- A testable policy recommendation is added: check how many absences were unavoidable before applying a flat fine.
This keeps the force of the original concern-many students, including top scorers, will be hit-without asserting an outcome the evidence cannot prove.
3. Analyse the student letter's claim: 'If the college cared about merit, it would not fine students at all.' Identify its assumption and evaluate whether the conclusion follows.
Read the worked answer
The claim assumes that caring about merit and imposing fines are incompatible. It treats one policy tool-a fine-as proof that the college does not care about merit.
That assumption is questionable. A college could care about merit and still believe that attendance is part of academic discipline, or that fines are a necessary enforcement mechanism. The conclusion would follow only if fines were shown to harm merit, or if the college had a better alternative and was ignoring it. The letter provides neither.
The phrase 'at all' also makes the claim absolute: even a well-designed fine with exemptions for medical cases is ruled out in advance. A stronger argument would be conditional: 'If the fine falls disproportionately on students whose absences are unavoidable, it harms merit and should be redesigned.' As written, the letter is an assertion of values rather than a proven conclusion.