Andrews+and+Sujiton

While Andrews argues that Critical period English learning should be maintained in Thailand, Sujitjon claims that English language should not be pushed in Thailand.

 * || ====== Andrews ====== || ====== Sujitjon ====== ||
 * ====== Argument 1 ====== || ====== The best way to build economic power and influence in Thailand is to improve English language skills ====== || ====== Mandarin would be the most useful lingua franca of South East Asia’s economy. ====== ||
 * ====== Argument 2 ====== || ====== English is the language of the Thai tourist industry which the economy depends on. ====== || ====== Tourists visit Thailand, not to speak English, but to enjoy the “beauty” of the country ====== ||
 * ====== Argument 3 ====== || ====== Critical period language learning is a “painless and cheap” way to ensure the money stays in Thailand ====== || ====== Thailand should invest in Thai universities rather than the critical period. ====== ||

**Critical Response to Andrews and Sujitjon**
At present, English as the global language plays an essential role in tourism and regional economic power of Thailand. However, whether the critical period language learning should be introduced into Thailand's education policy has sparked a spirited debate among the related researchers. In his article "Seizing the Moment "(date is unknown), Robert Andrews contends that this type of intensive language learning can bring a host of profits and it is the time to begin the English education of Thai children. Conversely, in his article "Cultural Suicide: The critical Period in Thailand" (2007), Dr.Surintra Sujitjon asserts that critical period language learning should not be introduced into education policy by Thai government. This essay will examine the credibility of these two articles based on their arguments, logic, evidence, tone and possible bias, then find out which article is more persuasive. (By Jason and Shi) Andrews's first argument is that improving English skills can lead to an increase to influence in South East Asia. The logic of this argument is questionable because this argument is exaggerated by using "best way" which describes improvement Thai economy.Moreover, the authour does not consider other possible factors such as agriculture, politics, export, economic issues.In terms of evidence, the evidence is irrelevant because he mentions about military power which is not related to economic power. Furthermore, the evidence is not credible because he uses his personal idea by using conditional statement.For example, "IF...[and]...will...".If he had mentioned broader factors and relevant evidence ,this article would have been more convincing. (By Eugenie and Samira)

The Sujitjon’s second main argument presumes that “Tourists come for the beauty of Thailand”, not to speak English. With regards to logic, it is plausible but it is an over-simplification of an acutely complex issue. The author considers the only thing that attracts tourists and marginalizes other possibility that tourists come to Thailand for investment or learning the mysterious culture. In terms of evidence, the author claims that “Even if the Cambodians [had] better English than us, tourists [would] still come to Thailand …”, it seems to be reliable on the surface level since it is well referenced. Nevertheless, this argument is not supported with any evidence at all. If the author had done some surveys or questionnaires, this argument would have been more persuasive. In short, this argument is mostly acceptable but there is the capacity for improvement. (by Kevin & Jack)