To serve the housing needs of our students Buckingham College should build a number of new dormitories Buckingham s enrollment is growing and based on current trends will double over the next 50 years thus making existing dormitory space inadequate Moreov

The Director of a student housing at Buckingham College assumed that the college should build new dormitories according to the expectations that the enrollment will double, and new dormitories will make prospective students more likely to enroll at Buckingham. This argument is flawed and illogical, as the director did not mention important information which might misguide the reader. Therefore the entire argument is not totally convincing and unsound.

Firstly, the director main assumption of building new dormitories to serve the housing needs was based on the relationship between the rate of enrollment and the need for apartments in the dormitory. This assumption is completely illogical, because enrollment in the university does not mean that students have to rent an apartment in the university. The director did not take into his consideration that a lot of the students matriculating in the university are already living nearby and they are not willing to move into the dorms. Since ignoring such important information might mislead the reader, the director must return to university register and confirm that greatest numbers of the students admitted at Buckingham are living in the dormitory.

Secondly, the director must have mentioned the source of the survey as strong evidence that the number of students will double. In addition to the duration of the survey, it must have been done for the previous ten years to be accurate. Also in my point of view the director should not base his assumption on a plan for 50 years as this is a very long period plan. Normally plans are based on three categories; short term plans for less than one year, medium plans around two years and finally long term plans is up to five years. Therefore 50 years is a plan that is hard to be validated.

Thirdly, the increasing rent rate in town will be a criterion that might hinder the students. Since it is well known that most students prefer sharing apartments. It will be more interesting for friends and colleagues to be living together without supervisors and dormitories regulations. They will share together the rent, cost of food and everything which might be cheaper and affordable for them.

Finally, attractive dormitories are the least attractive criterion for a student enrolling in any university. The director should not have based his assumption on this evidence. Students always choose among the most reputable and well known universities. They care a lot about the ratings and the quality of education, professors, and creditability. If we requested students to arrange the criterions I think that dormitories will be at the end of the list. Housing needs for students should be developed and taken into consideration however; they are not the reason for choosing a university.

To sum up, the argument is totally illogical and not sound. The director ignored some evidences and based his assumptions on unreasonable data which could hardly convince the reader. Therefore, the evidences submitted to make an urgent need for building and expanding the dormitories of the universities are very weak. I believe that further surveys should be done before making any decision.