The premise "All students who dedicated 6 hours per week for each course get good grades" is problematic. While diligent study is correlated with good grades, it's not a guarantee. Many factors influence academic success, including innate ability, learning style, teaching quality, course difficulty, and access to resources. The statement implies a deterministic relationship that doesn't exist. Some students may achieve good grades with less study time, while others may struggle despite dedicating 6 hours per week.

The second premise, "Students with high scores in high school will be better off in university," is also an oversimplification. While a strong high school record is advantageous, it doesn't guarantee university success. University demands different skills and approaches than high school. Students who excelled in high school might struggle with the increased workload, independence, and specialized subject matter in university. Furthermore, factors like financial stability, mental health, and social support significantly impact university performance, irrespective of high school grades.

The conclusion, "Therefore, students should either study hard or be genius to be a topper," is a false dichotomy. It presents only two options for academic success, ignoring the multitude of factors contributing to it. While hard work and innate ability are beneficial, they are not the sole determinants of academic achievement. Effective study strategies, seeking help when needed, maintaining good mental and physical health, and having a supportive environment are equally crucial. The conclusion also conflates "topper" (top performer) with a binary outcome, neglecting the spectrum of academic achievement. Many students succeed without being "toppers," and many factors contribute to success beyond simply hard work or innate intelligence. A more accurate conclusion would acknowledge the multifaceted nature of academic success and emphasize the importance of a holistic approach to learning and well-being.