His argument, however, is not complete and neglects to show any support for his claims that science teaching needs to change. Dewitt provides only one example: the story he tells, he does not include important factors to support his claims, such as expert testimony, statistics, supporting evidence, or comparisons . Due to its incomplete nature, his argument could be considered nothing more than an informal narrative. Which, in many ways, is exactly Dewitt's argument. DeWitt fails to examine examples of students who do not have a problem with the course material. In other words, he's not talking about students who don't need a different teaching method to succeed in science, or a whole host of problems that could arise from slowing down the pace of a course. Anyone hearing his argument might well refute it by asserting that his method of teaching might be just as detrimental to learning as a fast, smart, precise pace in class. Dewitt would have done well to exploit this potential