[a习作temp] argument169 习作求拍 [复制链接]

mianfeidewucan
UID: 2705713

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 139
注册时间: 2009-10-1
精华: 0
帖子: 2

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2010-2-14 22:54:56 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

argument的169题习作，请求大家不吝赐教，我愿接受一切言论。（不好意思，刚才那张贴题目忘记空格了）
题目：

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."

提纲：1、教授喜欢BC的原因不一定是他们配偶也在那工作；
2、BC和PU不能错误类比
3、PU不一定有足够的资金聘用每一个职员的配偶
4、其他还有一些小错误，比如没有提供新职员在总职员中的比重，没有说明这项政策足以保证聘请到的一定是最有天赋的职员。

In this argument, the chairperson cited the studies conducted by the Bronston College (BC) to reach the conclusion that in order to attract the most brilliant teachers and researchers to the Pierce University (PU) and improve the morale of the entire staff of PU, an employment for the spouse of each new faculty member PU hires is necessary. Soundly proved as it seems to be, the argument may hide some flaws which may undermine the conclusion.

In the first place, the other reasons for the professors' preference of working in small town, such as a preference for the pastoral scenery in the countryside or a higher salary provided by the BC may have been neglected in the argument. As we know, reasons like these may account for the most part of the choices made by the professors. Hardly can the arguer reach the conclusion if he has overlooked such possibilities.

Also, even though the employments of the spouse do account for the most part of reason for the interest of the professors in working in BC, the conclusion can hardly be generalized to PU, for we cannot neglect the difference of the two colleges. Maybe PU is situated in a prosperous city where it is easy for the spouses to find some jobs, or a higher level of study of the students in PU may attract some gifted teachers and researchers.

What is more, even if the conditions in the two colleges are alike and the employment of the spouse matters, the arguer fails to consider the feasibility for the PU to provide the employment for every spouse of the new faculty members. It is probable that the university will have spent much in bringing in many teachers and researchers, let alone hiring the most gifted ones，thus it may not have the enough money to hire the spouses of the staffs. Even if PU does have the enough money for the employments of the staff and their spouses, it may be better for it to spend the money in bringing something more indispensable, such as the experimenting equipments of high technology.

Finally, some other flaws, while not that kind of conspicuous as the former ones, can claim the unwarranty of the argument. Examples like these are the failing of providing some direct data for the fraction of new coming staff in the faculty, and the insufficiency of guarantee that the most gifted staff can come to PU under this policy.

Simply put, a lack of sound prove in the process may cause the argument to be less credible. To strengthen it the arguer should provide us some direct evidence that it is the employment of their spouses that leads to the happiness of the professors in BC, most of the conditions in PU and BC are similar, and the employment for the spouse of every new staff is financially feasible for PU.

回应
0

使用道具举报

AdelineShen
UID: 2630498

荣誉版主

Rank: 9 Rank: 9 Rank: 9

声望: 1555
寄托币: 14569
注册时间: 2009-4-17
精华: 18
帖子: 344

沙发

发表于 2010-2-16 23:13:02 |只看该作者

本帖最后由 AdelineShen 于 2010-2-16 23:14 编辑

原文逻辑分析：
1.
BC也坐落在小城镇里，研究显示男女教授在其配偶也在此地工作是会更开心。
2.
为了吸引最有天赋的老师和研究人员→PU应该为每一位faculty member的配偶提供employment→这笔钱一定值得投资，因为如果配偶能得到工作，新教授会更愿意来PU

逻辑错误攻击：
1.
Study的可信度不能保证：调查人数？代表性？即使study可信，BC的情况也不一定适用于PU
2.
即使给教授的配偶提供工作也不一定让他们happy，可能工作条件不能满足他们的要求呢？
3.
教授选择学校的标准主要是学校的研究环境，设施，工资等，能否给配偶提供工作只是一个很小的因素，不是主要因素。

提纲：1、教授喜欢BC的原因不一定是他们配偶也在那工作；
2、BC和PU不能错误类比
3、PU不一定有足够的资金聘用每一个职员的配偶
4、其他还有一些小错误，比如没有提供新职员在总职员中的比重，没有说明这项政策足以保证聘请到的一定是最有天赋的职员。
In this argument, the chairperson cited the studies conducted by the Bronston College (BC) to reach the conclusion that in order to attract the most brilliant teachers and researchers to the Pierce University (PU) and improve the morale of the entire staff of PU, an employment for the spouse of each new faculty member PU hires is necessary. Soundly proved as it seems to be, the argument may（去掉） hide some flaws which may（去掉） undermine the conclusion.
开头不错。
In the first place, the other reasons for the professors' preference of working in small town, such as a preference for the pastoral scenery in the countryside or a higher salary provided by the BC may have been neglected in the argument. As we know, reasons like these may account for the most part of the choices made by the professors. Hardly can the arguer reach the conclusion if he has overlooked such possibilities.（每段的最后一句，which conclusion?尽量用简单的语言概括出来，不要一个conclusion就了事了）
这段论证太简单了，不够具体。而且从论证顺序来讲，这个点放在第一点不合适。

Also, even though the employments of the spouse do account for the most part of reason for the interest of the professors in working in BC, the conclusion can hardly be generalized to PU, for we cannot neglect the difference of the two colleges. Maybe PU is situated in a prosperous city where it is easy for the spouses to find some jobs,（这句话是为了说明什么？这里的逻辑完全没有讲清楚） or a higher level of study of the students in PU may attract some gifted teachers and researchers.
这段连阶段性总结都没有，而且论证太简单了，逻辑也比较混乱。

What is more, even if the conditions in the two colleges are alike and the employment of the spouse matters, the arguer fails to consider the feasibility for the PU to provide the employment for every spouse of the new faculty members. It is probable that the university will have spent much in bringing in many teachers and researchers, let alone hiring the most gifted ones，thus it may not have the enough money to hire the spouses of the staffs. Even if PU does have the enough money for the employments of the staff and their spouses, it may be better for it to spend the money in bringing something more indispensable, such as the experimenting equipments of high technology.（这段你又讲到technology去了，也就是教授真正在乎的应该是research environment而不是配偶的employment，所以学校把钱投资在research environment才是更有意义的，你又回到你第一段的点上去了）
Finally, some other flaws, while not that kind of conspicuous as the former ones, can claim the unwarranty of the argument. Examples like these are the failing of providing some direct data for the fraction of new coming staff in the faculty, and the insufficiency of guarantee that the most gifted staff can come to PU under this policy.
Simply put, a lack of sound prove in the process may cause the argument to be less credible. To strengthen it the arguer should provide us some direct evidence that it is the employment of their spouses that leads to the happiness of the professors in BC, most of the conditions in PU and BC are similar, and the employment for the spouse of every new staff is financially feasible for PU.

这篇文章整体结构需要改动，逻辑论证顺序不合适，每一段的论证也不充分。参见我前面的分析再好好组织一下。

Die luft der Freiheit weht
the wind of freedom blows

【2025FALL】全站祈福已开放~~来领祈福章，求offer得offer

使用道具举报