Judging a Debate on Banning Private Tuition
At the school debating society the motion is: 'Private tuition should be banned for Classes IX to XII.' You are the judge. The transcript runs in order. Speaker 1: 'Tuition must be banned because 62 per cent of our students take it, and everyone knows that when so many people pay for something, it is corrupting education.' Speaker 2: 'My opponent wants to ban tuition, so he wants poor students who are weak in mathematics to fail. He wants a system where only the rich can afford help.' Speaker 3: 'I know a boy who took tuition and scored 92 per cent, and another who did not and scored 55. Tuition clearly works.' Speaker 4: 'Either we ban tuition completely or we admit that education is for sale.' Speaker 1 again: 'Our opponent is a tuition teacher's son, so his defence of tuition is worthless.' The principal asks for a written judgment: which arguments are fallacious, and whether any argument on either side survives.
1. Identify three fallacies in the transcript, quote the words that carry each, and explain why each is fallacious.
Read the worked answer
Three stand out. First, appeal to popularity: '62 per cent take it, so it is corrupting education' assumes that prevalence shows wrongness; a majority can do something harmless or harmful, and the number alone gives no reason. Second, straw man: 'He wants poor students who are weak in mathematics to fail' attributes to the opponent a position he does not hold - regulation is not the same as wanting failure - and then attacks the invented position. Third, false dilemma: 'Either we ban tuition completely or we admit education is for sale' presents two options when regulation, means-tested support and disclosure rules are available.
Two more can be noted: 'I know a boy who…' is hasty generalisation or false cause from a single pair of cases, and 'his father is a tuition teacher' is ad hominem. Identifying a fallacy, however, only removes a bad reason; it does not show the opposite conclusion, which is why a careful judge separates 'this argument fails' from 'the motion fails'.
2. Construct the strongest fallacy-free argument for the motion's opponents, and state whether it establishes the conclusion.
Read the worked answer
An argument for regulation rather than a ban runs: 'Unregulated coaching can exploit students and widen inequality, because families that can pay secure advantages in assessment; a rule requiring disclosure and fee caps preserves the benefit of extra help while limiting the advantage. Therefore tuition should be regulated, not banned.' This is valid only if the premises are supplied with evidence: that tuition actually changes marks, that inequality widens, and that regulation is enforceable. As stated it is a plausible practical argument, not a proof, and it supports regulation rather than the motion.
An argument against the ban: 'A ban would restrict a peaceful activity that many students and teachers rely on for income, and prohibition drives it underground, so less restrictive rules achieve the same protection. Therefore the ban is unjustified.' This survives the fallacies but still needs the premise that regulation works. The verdict: the motion is not established, because no speaker gave a sound argument for a complete ban.
3. What evidence would the debaters need, and how should the judge handle the anecdote and the ad hominem?
Read the worked answer
Evidence needed: the size and direction of any tuition effect on marks, ideally from school records comparing students with similar prior attainment; the proportion of families using tuition and what they pay, to test the inequality premise; the current harms such as leaks, teacher conflicts of interest and students' hours; the experience of boards that regulated or banned coaching; and the views of students who cannot afford tuition.
On the ad hominem, the speaker's family is irrelevant to the validity of his argument; the judge should ignore it and test the reasoning. On the anecdote about 92 and 55 per cent, two cases cannot show causation, because the students differ in prior ability, teaching and effort; a comparison group is needed. A good judgment in a debate is therefore a two-part verdict: which arguments are valid, and what evidence would make the surviving argument sound.