Standardising

1-building the three new private schools will sabotage future governmental schools.
2- The government has made no public announcements on the approvals.
3- Vast sums of public money will be spent to build these pervade schools.
4- The minister’s action contradicts the government’s long-term policy to reduce excess school capacity in the region (belconen) .
5- the distressing closure of Flynn primary school in 2006 (belconen) .
6- Statistics show that continued growth on enrolments in belconen region .
7- Ms Burch provided limited grounds on which the application could be refused
8-there is 2000 schools in belconen. (Nearly)
9- Population growth in belconen to 2021 = + 0.3/year compared too ACT of 1.4%/year.
Major sub conclusions:
10- the government does things without information the public of its decisions .
11- Regardless of the new schools being approved, Mr Burch assured that surroundings government schools won’t suffer as the government will continue funding their purpose.
Major conclusion:
12- The three private schools should not be approved. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5,).
Evaluating the argument and truth claims:
There is no reason to believe the premises are not true , the premises successfully lead to the next one , making the conclusion true . (Each confirms the one before it).

The reasoning is valid , but not inductively strong for a number of reasons.
-premise 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 make the conclusion more likely .
-premise 6 , 7 support the opposing view .
-premise 8 , 9 weaken the argument
-sub conclusion 11 contradicts what the minister is doing, weakening the minister argument
-is the government organizing its priorities right? Long-term policy vs current decision
-is the public being too bersh , or the government chose to mintmise press release ?
-How valid is save our schools resources? 2000 schools in belconen is widely inaccurate.
-the argument is fair in the way it presents the opposition the ministe’s premises
Unsupported claims:
-premise 8 claims to have nearly 2000 schools in belconen, given no sources and also it is an inaugurate assumption.
-premise 9 compares a suburb’s population rate (belconen) to its stat’s (ACT) again with no sources .
Refuting the argument:
-the argument can be refuted as premise (8 ,9) weaken the opposition’s argument .
-the minister’s quite in sub-conclusion (11)
-premises (6, 7) support the minister’s clams.
Analyses of inductive reasoning:
The argument (opposition) is strong, but other factor it contribute to weather it, but the conclusion is more likely as a result of most of the premises.
The sample size is unknown, nor it the opposing “public” However, some of the government’s actions contr: bute in strengthening the opposition’s argument “the public’s money”, “the public’s benefits” are some of the main pointers , also the government’s “secrecy” the closure of Flynn primary school is proof of the predicted results of the government’s decision .
Results:
In analyzing this article, it is found that the conclusion made is supported by premises (and sub conclusion) , not all premises support the conclusion , but stronger premises are favor of opposition. The lack of statistical information weakened the argument, but factors like the chance of jeopardizing government’s schools, governments minimal interaction with the public, historical factors on Flynn primary school, and public benefits outweigh the minister’s argument thus going in favor of the opposition