Here is a rough sketch of an argument I've been having some fun with. I always felt compulsory attendance at an institution that you pay a fee for is a little wrong.
Here's the argument:
P1: The point of a college course is for the student to have a thorough understanding/working knowledge of the material.
P2: A thorough understanding/working knowledge of the material is codified in a high grade (A).
P3: A high grade is based on a thorough understanding/working knowledge (From 1 and 2).
P4: If a high grade is based on a thorough understanding/working knowledge of the material, then no other factors can influence the grade.
P5: If no other factors can influence the grade, then attendance can have no influence.
P6: If a high grade is based on a thorough understanding/working knowledge of the material and only a grasp of the material, then attendance can have no influence (From 4 and 5).
P7/C1: Therefore, a high grade is predicated on a thorough understanding/working knowledge of the material, and not attendance (From 5 and 6).
C2: Therefore, it is wrong to lower a grade based on attendance. (From 6 and 7).
This is just the informal version of the argument. In time, I'm going to improve upon, and ultimately formalize it; so any constructive criticism is welcome.
No comments:
Post a Comment