23.
　　This speaker draws the conclusion that there is no need to substantially increase funding for Einstein High School. To support this conclusion, the speaker claims that Einstein has improved its educational efficiency over the past 20 years, even though funding level s have remained relatively¹ constant. His evidence is that two-thirds of Einstein's graduates now go on to college, whereas 20 years ago only half of its students did so. This argument suffers from several critical problems.
    
　　 To begin with, we must establish the meaning of the vague concept "educational efficiency." If the term is synonymous with the rate of graduation to college, then the statistics cited would strongly support the argument. But, normally we are interested in something more than just the numbers of students who go on to college from a high school; we also want to know how well the school has prepared students for a successful college experience—that is, whether the school has provided a good  secondary education. Thus, for the speaker the term "educational efficiency" must essentially² carry the same meaning as "educational quality."

      Given this clarification, one of the speaker's assumptions is that the rate of graduation to college has increased because Einstein is doing a better job of educating its students. However, the fact that more Einstein graduates now go on to college might simply reflect a general trend. And the general trend might have less to do with improved secondary　　education than with the reality that a college degree is now the standard of entry into most desirable jobs.

      But even if the quality of education at Einstein had improved, would this be a compelling reason to deny Einstein additional funding? I don't think so. It is possible that the school has managed to deliver better education in spite of meager³ funding. Teachers may be dipping into their own pockets for supplies and other resources necessary for doing their job well. Perhaps the quality of education at Einstein would improve even more with additional financial support.

      In sum, this argument does not establish the conclusion that additional funding for Einstein is unnecessary. To do so, the speaker would have to provide evidence that the quality of education at Einstein has improved. This could be done by examining student assessment⁴ scores or by tracking students through their college careers to see how many successfully graduate and find jobs. In addition, the speaker would also have to show that Einstein is doing a good job with adequate financial support, and not merely in spite of insufficient⁵ funding.
24.      
　　 The customer-service division of Mammon Savings⁶ and Loan recommends that the best way for the bank to attract new customers and differentiate⁷ itself from its  competitors is to improve its service to customers—specifically, by reducing waiting time in teller⁸ lines, opening for business 30 minutes earlier, and closing an hour later. These improvements, it is argued, will give the bank the edge over its competitors and make it appear more customer-friendly. For the most part this recommendation is  well-reasoned; a few concerns must be addressed, however.

      First, the author assumes that Mammon's competitors are similar to Mammon in all respects other than the ones listed. In fact, Mammon's competitors may be more conveniently located to customers, or offer other services or products on more attractive terms than Mammon. If so, Mammon may not gain the edge it seeks merely by enhancing certain services.

      Secondly⁹, the author assumes that the proposed improvements will sufficiently¹⁰ distinguish Mammon from its competitors. This is not necessarily the case. Mammon's competitors may already offer, or may plan to offer, essentially the same customer-service features as those Mammon proposes for itself. If so, Mammon may not gain the edge it seeks merely by enhancing these services.

      Thirdly, the author assumes that Mammon can offer these improved services without sacrificing any other current features that attract customers, in fact, Mammon may have to cut back other services or offer accounts on less attractive terms, all to compensate¹¹ for the additional costs associated with the proposed improvements. By rendering¹² its other features less attractive to customers, Mammon may not attain¹³ the competitive edge it seeks.

      In conclusion, Mammon's plan for attracting new customers and differentiating¹⁴ itself from its competitors is only modestly convincing. While improvements in customer service generally tend to enhance competitiveness, it is questionable¹⁵ whether the specific improvements advocated in the recommendation are broad enough to be effective.