This inductive argument seems like a rat-and-parrot wired bad joke. Firstly, for one to induce such a generalisation as this person has, based on what narrow glimpse they have on Rhodes’ first years, gives evidence of an infantile ignorance in observations and blinker-blackened reality. Since the writer knows only that which they are writing of, it doesn’t take much to detect fallacy, or fantasy, within the writers reality. How can someone think that everyone is as they are. It’s just this juvenile understanding of being and life that gives substantial grounds to perceive varsity as this writer does. A perception, disillusioned by a state of naïve blindness, such as this person, deserves to stay drunk, aim at 51%, and miss it. This writer deserves to fail, and if only some sense of justice were allowed to come into play, and replace this person with any of the numerous underprivileged, who would welcome a chance at varsity as it were heaven after death, a shot out of hell.
0 comments:
Post a Comment