[a习作temp] argument140 [SJTU-ETB6 10G] 第5次作业 [复制链接]

dacgile
UID：2367722

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 111
注册时间: 2007-7-23
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2007-8-6 15:24:51 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

ARGUMENT140 - The 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."
WORDS: 402 TIME: 00:30:00 DATE: 2007-8-6 15:09:07

By citing the evidences on her teaching and researching situation, the author concludes that a salary raise and promotion should be given to Professor Thomas. Close scrutiny of the argument, however, reveals that it is logically flawed in several respects, which render it unconvincing.

To begin with, the author relies on the assumption that the fact--her classes are among the largest at the university--proves her teaching ability. Yet the assumption overlooks other possible alternatives for the popularity of her class. Perhaps the class was a compulsory class which all the students on science should take; for that matter, it proves nothing. Or perhaps that she is a one who always grades higher marks than any other teachers--a good reason for her popularity. Even if her popularity is in fact true the fact yet proves nothing on her teaching ability, because teaching ability depends on many other respects except for popularity.

Furthermore, the mere fact that the money she has brought to the university in research grants has exceeded her salary cannot guarantee her researching ability. Researching ability depends not only this but also many other aspects--such as research findings, the author does not provide enough evidences to prove her ability. It is also possible that only in the past two years did she bring so much money in research grants. That is to say, in other years before, she did poor in this. Without ruling out these possible reasons, the author cannot simply say that she proves her researching ability.

Moreover, even if in fact Professor Thomas proves her teaching and researching ability, he author rests on the further assumption that other faculties does not do better than her. Yet there are no evidences to bolster the author' assumption. Maybe others did much better than her both in teaching and researching. In that sense, how can the author just recommend that she should receive a $10,000 raise and a promotion to Department Chairperson?

Last but not least, the author provides no assurances that she would leave for another college without such a raise and promotion. Lacking such evidence, maybe she just feels so content in her current position and at her current salary level. Thus, the committee cannot convincingly buttress their recommendation.

In sum, the argument is not persuasive as it stands. Without ruling out other possible alternatives and providing relative evidences mentioned above, the recommendation is just unacceptable and doubtable.