He makes a valid point and personally I think he is probably at least partly correct, and it's something that needs to be debated. However his argument is flaw

He makes a valid point and personally I think he is probably at least partly correct, and it's something that needs to be debated. However his argument is flawed because he focuses on the correlation between the government programs and tuition rates without giving any evidence of causation. His entire argument is based on "This then That, so This caused That" which is rarely the case. I can't think of any good examples of this so if someone else understands what I'm saying please help me out.