A.
The claim made by Kamenetz is that in order to solve the student debt and financial problems, we must begin to take action to influence legislators.
Kamenetz presents this claim as absolute, but there may be more solutions possible
Kamenetz did not provide alternate conditions or scenarios where she would not assert the claim, the argument is structured as the only solution, and that it is the only correct one
B.
There are a few reasons presented by Kamenetz to justify their claim. One is that there is a rapidly growing population of college students facing financial crisis. Compared to past generations it has gotten much worse, so the need for change is now. Another is that the only way to get legislators to listen is to come together and unite in a PAC. PACs can often influence elected officials to vote a certain way.
Kamenetz does not use much evidence in their argument but instead uses emotional appeal and reasoning. She insists you must join a PAC in order to get things changed, but doesn’t offer sound evidence as to why. She instead reasons that if we come together things can change. She also uses emotional appeal to make you feel obligated to help these students, but doesn’t offer why, or even that perhaps the problem begins with the students themselves.
Her argument is well put together, and to me is very believable, but no she does not have any evidence to back her up.
C.
The connection between the claim to the reasoning is that she believes the more people speaking out, directly relates to whether or not change will happen.
I do share these assumptions, however I don’t think this is always related. At a certain size, any group large enough can make a difference, but if it’s a moderate amount it can be hit or miss.
I believe Kamenetz should have offered some rebuttals, if nothing more than to shoot them down. Examples such as are the students responsible or the universities? The students signed up for this.
Travel 