The argument claims that improving health recreation facilities will attract new student and serve the need of current student body. Hence, making the talented ones enroll at Tusk. The stated conclusion is based on assumptions in which no clear evidence is stated. Therefore, the argument is flawed.
Firstly, the writer readily assumes that building a new recreational facility will attract new student doubling enrollment over the next ten years while neglecting other factors like interests that students consider while choosing a school. Students are of different kinds, and so their priorities and interests, some students will be more interested in arts, drama, academics etc, and which might be a main factor to consider while applying for a university. Clearly, the writer failed to consider other factors, pivoting her consideration solely on the new recreational facility. The argument would have been more lucid if the writer had explicitly stated that new recreational facility would attract students that are interested in recreation.
Secondly, the argument claims that the facilities will become inadequate due to higher percentage of commuter students enrolled. Again, the writer failed to state the interest of the new enrollee in the recreational facility, so much the commuter students might not be enlightened to using recreational facilities, making them not to acknowledge its importance which might consequentially result to the under-utilization of these facilities. For example, enrolling students with jobs, families, and other great responsibility, they have loads of academic work to do couple with their respective responsibilities, so how are they expected to make use of the facilities. This writer should have stated that students would be enlightened and measures would taken to make the use of the facilities mandatory for all students.
In addition, the writer made another flaw by assuming that students will find it more advantageous to make use of facilities on campus simply because of the increased cost of recreation club membership. The writer doesn’t tell the actual difference in cost so we can evaluate if it worth going for, because the community facility might be much more better, in terms of quality and credibility. Furthermore, the community recreational facility will attract people of higher caliber than that of the school which may be a good reason for students to prefer that over that of the school.
Finally, the argument concludes that an attractive new recreation centre would make students with athletic gift enroll at Tusk. This assumption could be termed invalid because Tusk University in this argument is not stated as a sport oriented University. Hence, their criteria for enrollment cannot be on the basis of gymnastic talent, even if a hundred of talented students applied, none of these would be enrolled.
In conclusion, the argument is flawed for the above reasons and its assumptions would have been valid if the writer had explicitly stated some grounded facts to substantiate her argument.