Reference no: EM133250766

Assignment:

Critical Reasoning

Are there syllogisms in the passage below? Standard S, P, M form?

What would the premises and conclusion be?

Fallacys? straw man, false dilemma, equivocation, slippery slope?

I don't believe there is validity and soundness in this passage.

Deductive or nondeductive argument? If deductive an example of a Fallacious Argument Denying the Antecedent or Affirming the Consequent

Passage:

The basic problem with government-subsidized student loans is that they are a subsidy to future high-income people. The loans students receive carry interest rates far below what even the most stable corporations pay.

While students, especially those from relatively poor families, do not have a high standard of living during college, they enjoy above average earnings soon after receiving their degrees. Since the loans are slowly paid off after graduation, during a period of high earnings, (then) subsidized interest rates seem unjustified. Why should factor workers and secretaries be taxed so would be managers, lawyers, and doctors can be subsidized?

And subsidized federal loans are only a small part of our educational subsidies. Here at Texas A&M, each student pays only a small percentage of the $10,000 -plus it annually costs the state of Texas. The great majority of these students come from relatively well-to-do families. In the cases of those few who do not, the argument about transfers to future high-income earners applies. It is important to distinguish loans per se from the currently heavily subsidized loans.

While subsidized loans are unjustified, a weak case can be made for government loan guarantees or possibly loans at unsubsidized rates. This is because of the problems created by current bankruptcy laws, which in some cases have allowed students to rid themselves of educational debt by simply declaring bankruptcy after graduation. Banks may therefore consider student loans too risky.

Unfortunately, these bankruptcy laws probably hurt children from poor families the most. For a student from a poor family, the parents' co-signature does not appreciably reduce the riskiness of the loan, since they do not own enough assets.

The simplest and best solution is to alter the bankruptcy laws to get rid of this problem. Private banks could then handle student loans entirely, with no role played by the federal government.

Evidence provided by Sam Peltzman of the University of Chicago suggests that abolishing subsidized loans will have little effect on the number of people attending higher education. The primary effect will be to end the unjustified taxing of people to subsidize the future wealthy of this country.