It seems that, at first sight, the author’s reasoning is logical to lead to the proposal that our department should require all art students to complete an internship with Skyway Designs before graduation. However, it is easy to find that the conclusion is unreasonable reconsidering this from the following several aspects.

The author indicates that Skyway Designs is a suitable choice for students to have an internship; there is a possibility that workers are not content with the salary after their entries to the company, which may lead to students refusing to start their internship in Skyway Designs.
Moreover, a company is bound to have a list of qualifications and requirements for its interns, and the students may not meet their qualifications. So some people may not be able to find an apt internship.

The author then points out that Skyway Designs is known for being one of the best in the design business because of the wide use of their design services, over 80 percent. I think the author mistakes the standard of the best corporation. The number of users can only represent the extensive audience of the design service, but cannot represent its quality. Perhaps compared with other design companies, Skyway Designs provide lower prices, which are preferred by cooperators. Thus, most businesses choose their products.

Last but not least, the ultimate purpose of having an internship is for students to find jobs after graduation, while compulsory internship may bring pressure to students, which may lead to a tight time to finish the graduation project. Also, the requirement is targeted at art students, which is not proper for them. The audience of the action is too narrow that the effect will not be predominant.
To sum up, the problems mentioned above are not exhaustive; however, these give us reason to reconsider reliability of the proposal.