argument140 小木互改站队

amanda2005UID: 2120493

140The following appeared in a report of the Committee on Faculty Promotions and Salaries at Elm City University.

"During her seventeen years as a professor of botany, Professor Thomas has proved herself to be well worth her annual salary of $50,000. Her classes are among the largest at the university, demonstrating her popularity among students. Moreover, the money she has brought to the university in research grants has exceeded her salary in each of the last two years. Therefore, in consideration of Professor Thomas' demonstrated teaching and research abilities, we recommend that she receive a $10,000 raise and a promotion to Department Chairperson; without such a raise and promotion, we fear that Professor Thomas will leave Elm City University for another college."

From the argument, Professor Thomas is indeed excellent for her contributions to the University. In order to keep her working consistently for Elm City University, the arguer recommend to raise her salary and promote her position. It seems reasonable and worthy to do like that at first glance, however, there are several critical fallacies in the argument.

To begin with, her teaching abilities can not be affirmed from her class size. The most popular teacher is not necessarily teaching-capable teacher. It is highly possible that Professor Thomas is inclined to credit the students who choose her classes high scores. Or it is entirely possible that teachers who are able to teach botany in Elm City University is so scarce that no better teachers can be chosen. At the same time there are a lot of students who are interested in botany. Without ruling out these possibilities, we can not believe that Professor Thomas is good at teaching botany.

In addition, the arguer does not provide any evidence to prove Professor Thomas’ research abilities. The arguer mentions that she brought huge money to the university in research grants. Then does the money put into the projects researched by professor Thomas? How about the results of those researches? Thus, this contribution only supports her social ability, not research ability. What’s more, she brought this financial aid just over the past two years. How about her working performance during the seventeen years in the Elm City University? Without these information, her research ability is unwarranted.

Last but not least, a raise and promotion to Professor Thomas is not a wise decision. The arguer worries about she will leave the University for another, but he does not provide any proof that Professor Thomas is under paid or a few Universities can offer higher salary to a botany professor than Elm City University. Meanwhile, a suspect about her ability to take in charge of Department Chairperson will be placed greatly. As a dean, one should not only be an academic leader in the botany area in the university but also have a strong experience of management and organization. Moreover, usually the chairperson should be voted from all the employees in the department, even if she can be assigned directly, without the support by others, the position can not last long. Therefore, the necessity of a raise and promotion should be further considered.

To sum up, the arguer does not point out the key advantages of Professor Thomas that prove her outstanding abilities. To strengthen the argument, the arguer have to provide more attainment to support her teaching and research abilities. And if she want to be a good leader of the department, her charisma is also needed to present. Otherwise, the raise and promotion will be useless.

我的世界我做主UID: 208546

From the argument, Professor Thomas is indeed excellent for her contributions to the University. In order to keep her working consistently for Elm City University, the arguer recommend to raise her salary and promote her position. It seems reasonable and worthy to do like that at first glance, however, there are several critical fallacies in the argument.

To begin with, her teaching abilities can not be affirmed from her class size. The most popular teacher is not necessarily teaching-capable teacher. It is highly possible that Professor Thomas is inclined to credit the students who choose her classes high scores. Or it is entirely possible that teachers who are able to teach botany in Elm City University is (are) so scarce that no better teachers can be chosen. At the same time there are a lot of students who are interested in botany. Without ruling out these possibilities, we can not believe that Professor Thomas is good at teaching botany.

In addition, the arguer does not provide any evidence to prove Professor Thomas’ research abilities. The arguer mentions that she brought huge money to the university in research grants. Then does the money put into the projects researched by professor Thomas? How about the results of those researches?（这两个问句at first glance 很有气势，细想来好像论证的不是很有力，应该说清楚首先是不是professor Thomas 带来的资金是个问题，即便是她的努力也只说明了social ability 感觉逻辑上少个过渡） Thus, this contribution only supports her social ability, not research ability. What’s more, she brought this financial aid just over the past two years. How about her working performance during the seventeen years in the Elm City University? Without these information, her research ability is unwarranted.

Last but not least, a raise and promotion to Professor Thomas is not a wise decision. The arguer worries about she will leave the University for another, but he does not provide any proof that Professor Thomas is under paid or a few Universities can offer higher salary to a botany professor than Elm City University. Meanwhile, a suspect about her ability to take in charge of Department Chairperson will be placed greatly. As a dean, one should not only be an academic leader in the botany area in the university but also have a strong experience of management and organization. Moreover, usually the chairperson should be voted from all the employees in the department, even if she can be assigned directly, without the support by others, the position can not last long. Therefore, the necessity of a raise and promotion should be further considered.

To sum up, the arguer does not point out the key advantages of Professor Thomas that prove her outstanding abilities. To strengthen the argument, the arguer have（has） to provide more attainment (?这个用法不清楚)to support her teaching and research abilities. And if she wants to be a good leader of the department, her charisma is also needed to present（感觉这里总结的有些不详尽，对应上面的缺乏针对性，前面也最好加上一句 for instance, to evaluate the argument more efficiently the arguer should provide …...） Otherwise, the raise and promotion will be useless.

[ Last edited by 我的世界我做主 on 2005-8-27 at 20:37 ]