Letter from a principal:\n\n"Some parents argue that uniforms stifle individuality. Yet surveys of schools with mandatory dress codes show higher attendance and fewer discipline referrals. Until someone presents stronger data, our uniform policy will remain."
Which evaluation best describes the principal's reasoning?
- It is pragmatic because the principal bases the policy on measurable outcomes rather than abstract ideals. (correct answer)
- It is naïve because discipline referrals never provide reliable information about student behavior.
- It is contradictory because the principal demands data yet refuses to collect new surveys on uniforms.
- It is manipulative because mentioning attendance statistics forces parents to accept uniforms without question.
Explanation: When evaluating an argument or reasoning, you need to assess the logic and approach the person is using, not whether you agree with their conclusion. Look at how they support their position and what type of reasoning they employ. The principal's reasoning is pragmatic because he bases his decision on concrete, measurable data rather than philosophical arguments. He acknowledges the parents' concern about individuality (an abstract ideal) but counters with specific evidence: higher attendance rates and fewer discipline referrals. His statement "until someone presents stronger data" shows he's open to changing his mind if better evidence emerges. This is classic pragmatic reasoning—focusing on what works in practice based on observable results. Choice B is wrong because the principal never claims discipline referrals are perfectly reliable—he's simply using the best available data. Choice C misreads the argument; the principal isn't refusing to collect new data, he's saying he'll maintain the current policy until better evidence is presented. Choice D overstates the case—while the principal uses data persuasively, presenting evidence isn't inherently manipulative, and he doesn't claim parents must accept the policy "without question." For TACHS reading questions about reasoning and argument evaluation, focus on the method of reasoning rather than the topic itself. Ask yourself: Is the person using emotional appeals, logical evidence, personal attacks, or practical considerations? Understanding these different approaches to argumentation will help you quickly identify the type of reasoning being employed.