The lecturer claims that obligatory
community service for students is (a) good idea.
However, the reading passage's assertion begs to
(is) different.
First, the lecturer argues that
criteria for assessing student's work is thoroughly prepared, therefore there
is no problem at gauging student's attitudes or activities in community
service. This contradicts the reading passage's point that there is (are) no
realistic criteria for assessing student's community service.
(It would be better to
introduce the reading passage’s idea in better detail, and then writing about
the lecture’s opposition. It is hard to grasp the point of conflicting argument
this way.)
Second, the lecturer says that even that (What
compensation?) compensation comes with community service, and this distorts the main philosophy of
helping others, serving community service still is a great opportunity to
inspire students. For example, a student who had allotted in hospital learned a
lesson about value of life and he decided to become a physician. (Has this been brought up by the lecture?) This
refutes the point made in reading passage's assertion that the true meaning of
helping others might get distorted.
Lastly, the lecturer insists that
there is no substantial difference between compulsory community service and
mundane school activities. Because whether it is community service or homework,
students still have to do and attend
all the trivial school activities or assignments.
And since forcing student to attend school activities or (do) assignments is not illegal (as long as there is
no special condition to consider), it means it's not against US constitution
that all citizens should be protected from involuntary servitude. This cast
doubt on the reading passages assumption that it is against the US constitution
to having students to take part in community service.