The following article appeared in a recent issue of a college newspaper. "Among all students who graduated from Hooper University over the past five years, more physical science majors than social science majors found permanent jobs within a year of gradu

This article concludes that in order to help its new social-science graduates find permanent jobs Hooper University should enhance its reputation in this field by adding courses and hiring eminent faculty. To support this claim the letter points out that more physical science than social-science students find permanent jobs within a year after graduation. The letter also cites a survey in which the former group of graduates attributed their job finding success to the prestige of Hooper's physical science department, while the latter group attributed their job-finding success to their own initiative. However, careful scrutiny of the argument reveals various statistical and other logical problems, which render it unconvincing.

To begin with, the survey that the argument cites is potentially problematic in three respects. First, we are not informed whether the survey's respondents were representative of the overall population of recent Hooper graduates in these two fields. The smaller the sample, the greater the possibility for biased results, and the less reliable the survey. Second, the survey reflects the graduates' subjective "beliefs" about why they obtained jobs; yet it is entirely possible these beliefs are not in accord with the true reason why they obtained jobs. Third, we are informed that the survey involved "recent" Hooper graduates; however, if the only graduates surveyed were those from last year's class, then the survey results would be less reliable than if the survey embraced a wider range of graduating classes. The smaller the range the less reliable any general conclusions drawn from the survey.

Even assuming the statistics that the letter cites are reliable, the letter's claim that the proposed course of action will achieve its intended result assumes a sufficient job market for social-science graduates. However, it is entirely possible that the number of jobs for physical-science graduates greatly exceeds the number of jobs for social-science graduates, and that this is the reason for the disparity m job-finding success between the two groups. In fact, real-world observation suggests that this is a reasonable explanation for the disparity.

Moreover, the letter fails to account for the possibility that the latter group of graduates are less likely than the former group to be interested in immediate employment--electing instead to pursue graduate-level study. Without accounting for these possibilities, the letter's author cannot justifiably conclude that the proposed course of action will boost the employment rate of new social-science graduates.

A third problem with the argument is that it unfairly infers that the proposed course of action is the only means of achieving the desired result. The letter's author overlooks other possible means of ensuring that social-science students find immediate employment--such as co-op programs, job seminars, and so forth. Without ruling out alternative means of achieving the same goal, the author cannot convince me that the proposed course of action is needed.

In conclusion, as it stands the argument is unconvincing. To strengthen it the author must provide strong evidence that the survey's respondents were statistically representative of all recent Hooper graduates in these two fields of study. The author must also rule out all other possible explanations for the disparity between job-finding success between the two groups of Hooper graduates. Finally, to better evaluate the argument I would need more information about the portion of graduates in each field pursuing immediate employment, and what alternative means are available to help ensure that Hooper's new social-science graduates find permanent employment.