It claims that the program is indispensable and necessary, evidences to such claim are well-presented and well-chosen as they complement and reinforce each other. Further, the use of the literature clearly defining what bilingual means as used in the paper provides clear parameters within which the argument was limited, thereby preventing misleading statements or vague interpretation of matters.
Structurally, the argument follows a logical sequence of reasoning and presentation of evidences. Each study cited is reinforced or complemented by the rest, and each paragraph tackles a single topic or presents a single idea for clarity and comprehensibility.
The author’s approach is notably the presentation of the opposing view which is followed by the author’s researched counter-argument. This approach is reasonable and sensible since it counters the opposing view point by point, issue by issue. This is apparently the only logical approach to countering the opposing side, especially in an argumentative work.
Part II. Content Review
The strength of the argument lies on the strength of the evidences presented. The use of statistical data culled from credible sources has effectively established the magnitude or the reach of the issue – that it affects a large and continually growing number of population in the United States. Credible sources like the Congressional Research paper, university studies or scholarly journals, either refuting the opposing claims or positing a pro-bilingual claim, lend the much-needed credibility to the argument.
There are weaknesses to the argument, however. The use of Encyclopedia should have been avoided, even for definition of terms.