argument9 欢迎拍砖！

zoe797970UID: 2249886

The claim that Omega University (OU) should terminate student evaluation of professors in order to enable its graduates to secure better jobs seems somewhat reasonable at first glance. After all, the arguer does offer some relevant evidence, and the assumptions weakening this argument are not without any merit. However, three important concerns which he/she fails to take into account may undermine the argument seriously.

In the first place, lacking more specific information about why the overall average grades have risen in OU, it is impossible to make an informed conclusion. The evaluation of professors leads to the risen of average grades? While this may be true in most cases, it is equally possible that enormous other factors result in this. For example, a famous scientist or political figure happened to give an impressive talk at that time, and many students attended that and began to cheer up afterwards. So there is no doubt some students got higher marks through hard work, consequently, the average grades rose. Furthermore, the attendance of new and professional teachers could also lead to this result.

In the second place, the arguer unfairly assumes that the 'inflated' grades were the only reason why OU graduates had not been successfully get high-paid jobs. He/she ignores other factors--such as the inrush of intellectuals, the recession of economy, the fame of OU, and the graduates' own abilities --which may be more important in determining the job opportunities. Any of above scenarios, if true, would render this argument a completely false one.

What further weakens this argument is without knowing more information about OU. Maybe the former fame of Au is obviously superior to the OU's, then there is no doubt the graduates will have more opportunities to achieve a better job than OU's. Meanwhile, the difference of development of economy and the government policies can also lead to various consequences. In a word, the problem is that the arguer fails to convince us the two situations are similar enough to justify the analogical deduction.

As it stands, this argument suffers from three critical flaws. To strengthen it, the arguer would have to demonstrate that the evaluation of professors was the exclusive reason led to the decrease. Furthermore, he/she must provide credible and acceptable evidence to rule out all the above-mentioned possibilities that might undermine the argument.