The Argument

The argument:

According to a poll of 200 charitable organizations, donations of money to nonprofit groups increased by nearly 25 percent last year, though not all charities gained equally. Religious groups gained the most (30 percent), followed by environmental groups (23 percent), whereas educational institutions experienced only a very small increase in donations (3 percent). This poll indicates that more people are willing and able to give money to charities but that funding for education is not a priority for most people. These differences in donation rates must result from the perception that educational institutions are less in need of donations than are other kinds of institutions.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The argument stating the claim that educational institutions rquires less funding compared to other fields seems to betrue in the first glance, however a through revision into this argument raises strong reasons that opposes it. A detailed analysis would prove to disapprove this claim as it lacks many evidences and also the facts given are not very strong for the judgement.

The years in which this study was undertaken should be checkd for its ecnomic situations,there may have been a sudden boom in the economy last year compared to the previous. This factor gives us the reason for the sudden increase in the donations to the nonprofit organizations. Another fact is that only two-hundred organizations were taken into account for this analysis. These two-hunderd organizations should have all the different groups namely religious,environmental and educational in the right propotion. This argument never talks about this propotion. Thus it loses its strength here. Also the fact that both public and private organizations must have ben taken into account, this is also not followed as seen from the argument.

The people who donate to these organization are not checked as to whether they are educated or not. Only a educated person would know about its glory and would feel that it too needs funding to develop it. Many myths about the environmental degradation are been broadcasted in many mediums, so people are more aware of the environmental factors. The public also felt that saving the environment is the cardinal act than anything as they pose a deadly threat if not done. This would have been the reason for the public to donate liberally towards environmental groups.

The satistics stating the fact that religious groups gained the most has can be weakened by stating that most of the general public are god fearing adn they feel that donation to god would make them prosper in thir life. This notion is the only reson for the increase in the charity in these groups. They may also call it thanks giving to god for his clemency towards them. This weakens the argument by proving that general public had a proclivity towards religion than anything.

The argument is further weakend by the fact that many educational groups have stopped their research just due to dearth of funds. In case of nanotechonlogical rsearch, which need huge sums of money many research centers are in standstill as they dont have enough sums to do research in the domain. On the other hand many private agencies and the stae fund these educational institutions and they dont call it charity.

Indeed educatiopnal institutions are the ones that require the most funding to prosper into new dimensions. The crituque clearly points out the flaws assumed by this argument and conveys strong claims that educational institutions require
more funding than any other groups mentioned.