argument169 欢迎作文互改小组

yaniiUID: 2807225

TOPIC: ARGUMENT169 - The following appeared in a letter from a department chairperson to the president of Pierce University.

"Some studies conducted by Bronston College, which is also located in a small town, reveal that both male and female professors are happier living in small towns when their spouses are also employed in the same geographic area. Therefore, in the interest of attracting the most gifted teachers and researchers to our faculty and improving the morale of our entire staff, we at Pierce University should offer employment to the spouse of each new faculty member we hire. Although we cannot expect all offers to be accepted or to be viewed as an ideal job offer, the money invested in this effort will clearly be well spent because, if their spouses have a chance of employment, new professors will be more likely to accept our offers."

The chairperson recommends Pierce University (PU) attract gifted teachers and researches by offering employment to their spouse. However, the supporting evidences – some studies results and a falsely analogy – suffer several logical flaws, rendering the recommendation based on them unconvincing.

When evaluating the studies, one must make clear how they are conducted. Consider the investigator, the Bronston College (BC). Does it have special benefits of reporting such studies? Say to comfort its employees, who have to live in a small town, by stating they would be the happy ones. In addition, we are not informed whether the study responses were leading or in public. If so, then the respondents might response what their supervisor expect. Are the studies conducted within BC campus or in the small town? If it’s the case, it would be unsafe to generalize a broad attitude towards the employment place of their spouse.

Even accept the studies’ results are reliable, the author assumes that professors would prefer working for PU located in a small town to any other alternatives. The studies only reveal that faculty feel happier with their spouse employed in the same small town. Perhaps comparing with living in a big city, also live with their spouse, they would be less willing live in a small town, considering the inconvenience of shopping and deficiency of entertainment. For that matter, how can PU appeal to gifted faculty in big cities? What’s more, when choosing a university to work for, what professors accentuate is not only the possibility to live with their spouse, if they have, but also the reputation of the university, the quality of its researching facilities, the welfare it offers, its appeal to talent students, its colleagues and assistants, even the parking lots in campus.

The feasibility and serviceability of the recommendation is also questionable. What kinds of jobs would the college offer to faculty’s spouses? Logistics work in the college or some in cooperative enterprise? How can there be sufficient openings to offer? What if many of the potential spouses have already possessed an satisfying job and never think to quit? If so, the PU cannot dig the gifted teachers and professors from their present workplace. Even if gifted professors do prefer PU, it probable not lead to enhancing the wholly morale of faculty in the college.

As long as there is some logical thinking ability, one would find the chairperson’s recommendation neither appealing nor persuasive, if not ridiculous. To attract gifted teachers and researches, it had better resort to both spiritual and material measures. To enhance the morale of present faculty, they are many means, such as strengthening communication between different academies and provide some incentives.

dsndiziUID: 2792853

The chairperson recommends Pierce University (PU) attract gifted teachers and researches by offering employment to their spouse（spouses） . However, the supporting evidences – some studies results and a falsely analogy（这你在这里面说了错误类比应该指的是B和P不同地域得出结论没有可比性这点吧 可是你的下文好像忘记比较了~） – suffer several logical flaws, rendering the recommendation based on them unconvincing.

When evaluating the studies, one must make clear how they are conducted. Consider the investigator, the Bronston College (BC). Does it have special benefits of reporting such studies? Say to comfort its employees, who have to live in a small town, by stating that they would be the happy ones. In addition, we are not informed whether the study (study’s) responses were leading or in public. If so, then the respondents might response(respond to give an answer ) what their supervisor expect.可以加上一个过渡what’ more Are the studies conducted within BC campus or in the small town? If it’s the case (case指的 在校园还是小镇 貌似没有说清~), it would be unsafe to generalize a broad attitude towards the employment place of their spouse.

Even accept （这好像有语病 accept the fact that….are reliable  或者你可以说 assumes。。。are reliable）the studies’ results are reliable, the author assumes that professors would prefer working for PU located in a small town to any other alternatives. The studies only reveal that faculty feel  happier with their spouse employed in the same(这里用similar比较好吧 毕竟有点区分性的感觉指的是BC所在小镇的情况) small town. Perhaps comparing with living in a big city, also live with their spouse, they would be less willing (+to) live in a small town, considering the inconvenience of shopping and deficiency of entertainment. For that matter, how can PU appeal to gifted faculty in big cities? What’s more, when choosing a university to work for, what professors accentuate is not only the possibility to live with their spouse, if they have, but also the reputation of the university, the quality of its researching facilities, the welfare it offers, its appeal to talent students, its colleagues and assistants, even the parking lots in campus. （这段为了呼应第一段 或许应该论证 即使B的调查是可信的 但是应用在P这里就不一定行的通 比如你可以列举 B 和P 所在城市人的观念不同啦，B比P的环境好才是哪里更吸引人去的原因之类的~和大城市的比较更像是在论证这个方法的可行性你可以放在你下面一段论证）

The feasibility and serviceability of the recommendation is also questionable. What kinds of jobs would the college offer to faculty’s spouses? Logistics work in the college or some in cooperative enterprise? How can there be sufficient openings to offer? What if many of the potential spouses have already possessed an satisfying job and never think to quit? If so, the PU cannot dig the gifted teachers and professors from their present workplace. Even if gifted professors do prefer PU, it probable not lead to enhancing the wholly morale of faculty in the college. （这句话的因果关系我没有理解？求解释 文章的意思我认为吸引来了那么多的教授从而提高了师资 可以振奋所有员工的士气  你可写如果那些教授都不愿意来 就更别提能增长员工的士气， 然后为了呼应你的结尾，你可以说 while, there are some more fesible alternative avenues to reinforce the morale of the entire stuff, such as strengthening communication between different academies and provide some incentives.）

As long as there is some logical thinking ability, (我读这句有点火药味太浓咯~ 你可以缓和一点)one would find the chairperson’s recommendation neither appealing nor persuasive, if not ridiculous. To attract gifted teachers and researches, it had better resort to both spiritual and material measures. To enhance the morale of present faculty, they are many means, such as strengthening communication between different academies and provide some incentives.(我个人觉得你的结尾有点突兀~这你的前文并没有提出过类似的建议 解决方法 见第三段段尾)
总结~也许我改得少有偏差 不过都是些意见而已 你看着采纳~

yaniiUID: 2807225

我写时考虑的太少了，谢谢你的点评，对我很有启发