Please answer Questions 8 thru 10 in APA format:

8. Is the language that is being used loaded or slanted in any way? Do any ambiguous words or phrases appear in the discussion? What kind of message is being conveyed in the phrase "whine and complain" that appears in the very first sentence of Hope's state-mento What about "school pride,* which she uses in her second paragraph could it be open to a variety of interpretations?

9. Are there any logical fallacies in the argument? Can you find any instances of false analogies, ad hominem attacks, slippery slope reasoning, appeals to common practice, or any other fallacies in Hope's Statement?

10. Is anything important being left out of the presentation? Can you think of any alternative interpretations of the information Hope provides for example, the study of legacy and non-legacy donations? Can you think of any negative consequences of favoring alumni children in college admissions?

Sometimes it's easier to criticize someone else's flawed presentation than to think of ways to convey a position effectively, but you may be able to develop your critical thinking powers more fully by considering the ways in which Hope could have strengthened her case. How could she have presented her case more convincingly? What could she have done to create a more logically reasoned and solidly supported argument?

See if you, like Tanya, can think critically about college life by examining the following argument presented by Tanya's friend Hope. I know a lot of people who whine and complain about the children of alumni having an easier time getting into Cromwell than other applicants. I've heard from a friend of mine who does work-study in the admissions office that the average applicant to Cromwell has a one in ten chance of being admitted, but alumni children-they call them "legacies" - have a four in ten chance. Some people think that's an unfair advantage, but I don't agree. I think legacies do deserve extra attention from the admissions office. My dad is a Cromwell alumnus, so I know about this firsthand. Legacy applicants are more likely to do well when they get to Cromwell, because they understand what the college is all about. They know the old traditions and have a stronger feeling of school pride. They foel committed to Cromwell because of their family connection to it, so they won't want to do anything to jeopardize their success here. They probably have higher retention rates, because legacies won't ever want to transfer to another school. Besides, if your parents graduated from Cromwell, that means they must have been smartwhich means that you're smart, too, so you deserve a greater chance of admission to the college. The students I know who happen to be children of Cromwell alumni are all pretty intelligent. I'm afraid I can't say the same for Cromwell students in general. And we shouldn't forget that legacies aren't the only ones who get favorable treatment in the admissions process. Cromwell gives special consideration to other groups, too: athletes, underrepresented minorities, students with special artistic or musical talents, and so on. Why not add alumni children to the list? The real clincher, though, is that alumni children, when they become alumnl themselves, are going to be major donors to the college. The more of a family tradition you have of being connected to the school, the more likely you are to make major financial contributions. In Cromwell's alumni magazine, I read about a research study that showed that in their first two years after graduation, 78 percent of legacies donated a total of $100 or more to Cromwell. Only 36 percent of non-legacy graduates donated $100 or more in their first two years out. Like most colleges, Cromwell depends on alumni support to raise funds. If we cut down our number of legacy admissions, what would happen to the college budget? We might not even be able to keep things runningl I guess that's why most private colleges across the country admit alumni children at higher rates-Cromwell is just doing what all the other colleges do. I think the people who complain about legacy admissions are jealous and mean-spirited. They need to calm down and take a longer view of things. After all, their children will be able to benefit from the legacy admission advantage as well. - Is the langunge that is being used loaded or slanted in any way? Do any ambiguous words or phrases appear in the discussion? What kind of message is being conveyed in the phrase "whine and complain" that appears in the very first sentence of Hope's statement? What about "school pride," which she uses in her second paragraph-could it be open to a variety of interpretations? - Are there any logical fallacies in the argument? Can you find any instances of false analogies, ad hominem attacks, slippery slope reasoning, appeals to common practice, or any other fallacies in Hope's statement? * Is anything important being left out of the presentation? Can you think of any alternative interpretations of the information Hope provides-for example, the study of legacy and non-legacy donations? Can you think of any negative consequences of favoring alumni children in college admissions? Sometimes it's easier to criticize someone else's flawed presentation than to think of ways to convey a position effoctively, but you may be able to develop your critical thinking powers more fully by considering the ways in which Hope could have strengthened her case. How could she have presented her case more convincingly? What could she have done to create a more logically reasoned and solidly supported angument