In this argument the author cites a poll showing that the amount of
charitable donations
increased last year, but that the increase to
educational institutions was far less
than to either religious or
environmental groups. Based on this evidence the author
concludes that more people are willing and able to make charitable donations, but
that education is not a priority for most people.The author also concludes that the
discrepancy among donation rates is the result of a general
perception that educational
institutions are in less need of money than other institutions are.This argument
depends on several unsubstantiated assumptions and is therefore unpersuasive as it
stands.
First of all, the author''s conclusions about people''s willingness to donate to the
three types of
charities listed depend on the assumption that the poll results are
statistically reliable.Yet, the author offers no evidence to substantiate this assump-
tion.The author must show that the 200 charitable organizations polled constitute a
sufficiently large sample of religious, environmental, and educational charities, and
that this sample is representative of all such charities. Otherwise, the author cannot
confidently draw any general conclusions about the willingness of people to donate
to these three types of institutions, or about general perceptions regarding the needs
of any such institutions.
Similarly, the author''s sweeping claim that "more people are willing and able to
give money to charities" depends on the assumption that the poll results are sufficiently
representative of charitable giving in general.Yet, the author offers no evidence
to substantiate this assumption.The author must show that the 25% total increase
in the rate of donations to the three types of institutions polled is representative
of the increase in donations to all types of charities.The author must also show
that the total number of donors actually increased last year; as it stands the argument
leaves open the possibility that the total number of donors decreased last year while
the average amount given by each donor increased. Absent evidence to support
these assumptions, the author''s broad conclusion that "more people are willing and
able" to make charitable donations is dubious at best.
Additionally, the author provides no evidence whatsoever for the claim that
educational institutions are perceived as less needy than other institutions, or that
this perception explains the lower donation rate to educational institutions. Lacking
such evidence, there are many other possible explanations for the discrepancy
in donation rates. Perhaps people''s perception is that educational institutions are
more likely than the other types to squander or misuse donated money; or perhaps
most donors are simply more interested in advocating religions or environmental
protection than in subsidizing education. For that matter, perhaps among all charitable
organizations educational institutions ranked third last year in terms of gifts
received-bettered only by religious and environmental charities. Such evidence
would serve to undermine the author''s claim that funding for education is "not a
priority for most people."
In conclusion, the argument is indefensible as it stands. To strengthen it the
author must assure me that the poll results accurately reflect donation rates not
only to all religious, environmental, and educational institutions but also to the
broader group of all charitable institutions.The author must also provide clear evidence
for the claimed perception about the need of educational institutions and
that this perception, and not some other factor, explains the comparatively low
donation rate to these institutions.
More summaries about the Rates of charitable donations