Argumet144 高频

The author give an explanation of the charities’ “non-average” gaining of donations that educational institutions are less in need of donations than are other kinds of institutions. However, the author provides neither enough evidence about the unfair condition of donations nor sufficient support to his reason for the phenomenon.

As cited, Religious groups and environmental groups gained 55 percent of donations in the last year while educational institution experienced a 3 percent increase in donations. Obviously, the author try to present that educational institution gained less donations than other kind of institution, which, however, has nothing relevant to what the author provided. Without mentioning any other type of organizations, the article has no negative evidence that the rest part of the total donations could not be gain by environmental, which takes up 45 percent of all, which is much more than religious groups’ 30 percent. After all, we have no idea about the donations number of educational institution last year. If only the number is big enough, what we assume is totally possible. What is more, the number of those organizations involved in this poll is just 200 while the total number nonprofit groups is not provided. We can not assure the validity of the poll’s result which can affect our conclusion very much.

The author claims that differences in donation rates must result from the perception that educational institutions are less in need of donations than are other kinds of institutions. To find the reason of the differed donation rates, one should make a full analysis of changes in donations rates in the past. When did the differences occur significantly? Once we determine when the difference began, we can try to identify which of factors present at the time combined to set the donations difference in. However, the author has not done any similar work, or has not provide at least, which unfortunately makes his convincing unsound.

In summary, to give explanation to certain phenomenon, there are two important things. For one thing, one should carefully identify what the phenomenon exactly is, when did it occur and provide available factors which can contribute to the phenomenon. For another thing, one should make full analysis and compare to find out the real reason other than simply select one as the final answer. As far as this article is concerned, the author do neither above well, as a result, the conclusion is not credible for me.