Spotting the Reasons in the Editorial  (Third Page)

                                                 Paragraph 3

This paragraph continues to give us specific information about the federal government's involvement in the school district; in fact, this information states what the federal government wants the school district to do: "to alternate boys and girls events on 'prime' days and during 'prime' times." We are then given definitions of prime day and prime time. The editorial also tells us what the 1993 agreement required the school district to do: "to rotate girls and boys basketball games to provide an equivalent amount of prime-time games." This means that the school district would have to make sure that the number of boys basketball games after 6 p.m. is the same as the number of girls basketball games after 6 p.m. In other words under the 1993 agreement, girls basketball games could all be played on Mondays,Tuesdays,Wednesdays, or Thursdays after 6 p.m. but the boys basketball games could still all be played on Fridays after 6 p.m. The new demands of the federal government that go beyond the 1993 agreement are stated
at the end of paragraph 3: 1) the requirement applies not only to basketball games but now also to football and volleyball games, and 2) there must be an equal number of games not only during prime time (after 6 p.m.) but now also on prime days (a school day which is followed by a no-school day). But are these statements reasons which support the conclusion of the editorial?
Let's test them.

            Conclusion:  The federal government shouldn't dictate athletics schedules

    (BECAUSE)  Reason 1: The 1993 agreement required that boys and girls basketball
                                             games be rotated to provide an equivalent amount of prime
                                             time games.
    (BECAUSE)  Reason 2: The government extended its demands to include prime                                              days as well as the sports of football and volleyball.
    (BECAUSE)  Reason 3: The government has imposed a $200,000 federal fine.

Do these statements make sense as reasons? Do they directly support the conclusion?
No, they don't seem to make sense as statements that directly support the conclusion
Then what are they? Look at them again. Are they examples of something?
Could be --but examples of what?  The government made them sign an agreement;
the government extended its demands; the government imposed a fine. What are these things examples of? Aren't these things direct examples of meddling?
Yes!  These three reasons above function as examples which provide support for
the reason we found in the first paragraph:

                                 The federal nanny is meddling again.
        
 Let's summarize the argument thus far in standard form on the next page.


Summary | Previous | Next | Editorial | Editorial-Spotting Conclusion | Editorial-Spotting Reasons |


MCC Home | Comm/Humanities Home | Philosophy Home | Faculty Pages | On-line Courses | Courses |
Student Essays | Area Philosophy Departments | Philosophy Resources | Philosophy of Technology |
Philosophy of Education | Philosophy and Multiculturalism | Philosophy and Learning College | Web
Authoring Resources | Libraries |


                                           Metropolitan Community College
                                                      Omaha, Nebraska

Last revision: June 6,1998
Send comments or additional sites to Frank Edler fedler@mccneb.edu