Today I’ve taken my first year composition class to hear a talk by state assemblyman Alberto Torrico about AB656, a bill that would create a tax on oil and gasoline produced in the state, to fund public education.
Logical arguments offered in favor of funding higher ed:
- for every dollar spent on higher ed., more than $4 are returned to the state economy
- in 2025, California will be short a million college graduates needed for the workforce
- more spent on prisons than on higher ed., and that system has failed.
- 70% recidivism
- 60% functionally illiterate
- no rehab/education programs
- #students under a third grade reading level predicts prison levels.
- Other states all have this kind of tax.
- Oil companies are prohibited from passing on the extra cost to consumers
- Oil companies are making record profits
- son of immigrant parents–Mexican and Japanese
- first generation college graduate
- has focused on socially progressive issues aimed to help those in the most difficult circumstances.
- graduated from public higher ed in California
Emotional arguments, or pathos:
- fairness–in several ways. –Shades into an ethical argument as well.
- appeal to what California is all about–creating a better life, better future
- Wide public support — maybe another form of ethical argument as well
Exhortation: Sign the petition
In our next class we’ll analyze the above argument all together, and talk about how to evaluate it.