A common form of argument in favour of increased tuition fees is to suggests that lower fees are intended to solve a problem and then to argue that the problem was not solved by the lower fees. Not only does this confuse necessary and sufficient conditions, it often misrepresents the primary argument for lower fees. Both are the case here. Nobody (I think) would argue that lower fees are sufficient to grow the population of Newfoundland and Labrador. Nor would this be a primary argument for a tuition freeze. So why offer such a bad argument in University Affairs? The publication doesn't tell us, but the first comment does.
Today: 2 Total: 85 [Direct link] [Share]
