False Dilemma: The text presents a false dilemma by suggesting that schools either invest in proven reforms or use additional resources to reduce local property taxes. This dichotomy oversimplifies the decision-making process and ignores the possibility of schools allocating resources to various needs, including proven reforms, without necessarily reducing taxes.

Hasting Generalization: The text makes a generalization when it claims that the learning gaps caused by Covid are only a small portion of those that were present prior to the pandemic. Although it is agreed that there were learning inequalities prior to the pandemic, making generalizations about the size of these gaps without specific data or evidence might be hasty and inaccurate.

False Cause: The text suggests a connection between the epidemic that prompted $200 billion in spending and the requirement for trillion-dollar investments to address systemic inequity more broadly. Increased expenditure may be critical for tackling educational inequities, but oversimplifying the complex processes that contribute to inequality by assuming a cause-and-effect relationship between pandemic-related spending and the requirement for trillions in investment.

Broad Generalization: The text broadens the discussion by claiming that smaller classrooms, more tutoring, charter schools, longer school days, greater access to special education, and less strict grade cutoffs all result in long-term advantages for children. The statement oversimplifies a complicated subject and assumes that these treatments are always effective without taking into account possible changes in implementation, context, and other contributing factors, even though these interventions can have good benefits.

Slippery Slope: By implying that a lack of social mobility harms not only children but the entire society, the first phrase commits the slippery slope fallacy. Even if a lack of social mobility can have detrimental effects on both people and communities, presuming that it directly hurts society as a whole without presenting any supporting data or logic is oversimplification.

Appeal to Consequences: By stating that limited social mobility harms not only children but the entire society, the first statement also makes use of the appeal to consequences fallacy. It means that, without taking into account the underlying reasons or potential downsides of particular remedies, action must be taken to address limited social mobility based purely on the adverse effects it may have.

Appeal to Authority: By mentioning the "researchers" who have exploited big data to identify education innovations that potentially result in considerable advances, the second paragraph commits the error of appealing to authority. It simply relies on the authority of the researchers to persuade the reader without supplying any detailed information about the researchers, their techniques, or the validity of their findings.

Cherry-picking: In the second paragraph, a single school reform—the value of teachers—is presented with only a few examples to support it, without noting its potential drawbacks or taking into account a wider variety of variables that affect educational outcomes. It misses out on other crucial factors that contribute significantly to academic performance by concentrating only on the effect of better teachers on students' lifetime earnings.

The argument makes a Slippery Slope fallacy by claiming that education has benefits beyond economic ones, like better health, happiness, civic involvement, lower crime rates, and higher social mobility. While establishing a straight causal relationship between education and all these outcomes simplifies the complicated elements that contribute to them, education can have good benefits on individuals.

A hasty generalization is used in the argument when it claims that "data show clearly" that children with more education are healthier, happier, more civically engaged, and less likely to commit crimes. It is premature to make such broad generalizations in the absence of particular information about the data sources, techniques, and other confounding variables. False Cause: The argument makes the assumption that education has a causal relationship with a number of outcomes, including better health, happiness, and lower crime rates. Although education can have an impact in these areas, it oversimplifies the complex network of elements that go into them, including financial circumstances, familial support, and personal traits.

Cherry-picking: The argument only discusses the advantages of education while ignoring any potential problems or constraints. It doesn't present a fair viewpoint or take into account potential objections because it primarily emphasizes the benefits of education.

False Cause: Without offering sufficient support or causal logic, the paragraph assumes that education is the answer to a lack of mobility. Without taking into account other factors that might contribute to social mobility, it implies a cause-and-effect relationship between education and mobility.

Generalization: The paragraph makes a broad generalization when it claims that education not only gives people additional means to escape poverty, but also helps to restore equality of opportunity in America. While education can help reduce inequality, blaming education alone for all of the answers oversimplifies a complicated problem.

Appeal to emotion:The paragraph makes use of emotive language, such as "galvanizing support" and "rarely seen before," to arouse the reader's emotions and persuade them. Although they can be strong, emotions shouldn't take the place of critical thinking or evidence-based reasoning.

Bandwagon Fallacy: The sentence suggests that because there is more support for school financing as a result of the pandemic, it is unquestionably the best course of action. Without taking into account alternate viewpoints or potential downsides, it makes the assumption that the prevailing viewpoint or popular support is fundamentally correct.

here the author is committing hasty generalization. The author assumes that data measuring the outcomes of low-income children implies that the idea of America as a land of opportunity is a myth. It generalizes from a specific group to make a broad conclusion about the entire nation.

2.The sentence creates a false dichotomy between the idea that America is a place of opportunity and the idea that this idea might be fiction. It argues that the notion of America as a land of opportunity must be untrue if research indicates low-income youngsters struggle to achieve. This oversimplifies a challenging problem.

Here the author is using fallacy of omission: stacking the deck, by not including other arguments/research that supports that quality of education in earlier grades are equally important if not more important than in later years becasue it is integral to development. This point also does not support to the authors main argument in any way. In my essay I will make sure to consider other argument's and find evidence that disproves them. I will also only add relevant information.

Here the author is using confirmation bias. The author is relying on a source that clearly agrees with their own argument. In my essay I will use neutral evidence from neutral authors to make my argument stronger.

The author is using hasty generalization assuming that "almost everyone" has a memory of school that has greatly influenced their life.