[a习作temp] argument140 [0710G　＋U Aug小组]第13次作业 [复制链接]

cofeebean
UID：2289548

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 355
注册时间: 2007-1-3
精华: 0
帖子: 2

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2007-8-13 21:02:34 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

题目：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."
字数：313       用时：00:30:00       日期：2007-8-13 12:13:02

The arguer suggests to give Professor Thomas a promotion both in position and in salary since she contributed greatly in teaching and researching. The argument suffers several flaws.

The arguer draws a hasty generalization on Professor Thomas's abilities in teaching and researching merely on following two facts. The first is that her classes are very large which cannot act a standard to present the attitude of students towards her teaching. There maybe other reasons contributing to this fact, including the discipline of botany in the university is good enough to attract many students. Before evaluating her teaching ability, further investigations should be made on her classes and more opinions should be gleaned from students and other professors.

  The second fact the arguer quoted is that she brought more research grants than her salary in last two years. How much do these research grants exceed her salary exactly?  Is this contribution great when comparing with other professors in botany? Because if other professors also attract much more research grants than Thomas, this fact is worthless to prove her ability. What's more, to convince us her research ability, the most important evidence is the research result and papers published for a professor which the arguer doesn't pay attentions to.

Granted that the professor performs distinguished in teaching and researching, it does not followed that she also has an excellent ability in administration. Thus it is unsuitable to promote her as Department Chairperson. Furthermore, the arguer fails to take other alternatives into account such as the family immigration which cannot be solved by his suggestion. Before making sure the reasons which may drive Thomas leaving, it is unreasonable to make a suggestion of improving salary and giving her a promotion.

  To sum up, the argue should first make further investigation on the reason for professor's leaving, and provide more strong evidence about her research and teaching ability.

回应
0

使用道具举报

Satanic
UID：2362211

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 266
注册时间: 2007-7-12
精华: 0
帖子: 1

沙发

发表于 2007-8-15 23:43:04 |只看该作者

argument140 0710G　＋U Aug小组第13次作业
题目：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."
字数：313       用时：00:30:00       日期：2007-8-13 12:13:02
The arguer suggests to give Professor Thomas a promotion both in position and in salary since she contributed greatly in teaching and researching. The argument suffers several flaws.最后一句有点单薄
The arguer draws a hasty generalization on Professor Thomas's abilities in teaching and researching merely on following two facts. The first is that her classes are very large which cannot act a standard to present the attitude of students towards her teaching. There maybe other reasons contributing to this fact, including the discipline of botany in the university is good enough to attract many students. Before evaluating her teaching ability, further investigations should be made on her classes and more opinions should be gleaned from students and other professors. 很简洁明了。hasty generalization？我觉得这个错误包括：确定数字，特定较小范围，attendants 3种，就是以小推大。不过就我觉得用在这里不能算错，不知道考官的意见如何，在没有把握的情况下，可以不出现这个字眼
  The second fact the arguer quoted is that she brought more research grants than her salary in last two years. How much do these research grants exceed her salary exactly?  Is this contribution great when comparing with other professors in botany? Because if other professors also attract much more research grants than Thomas, this fact is worthless to prove her ability. What's more, to convince us her research ability, the most important evidence is the research result and papers published for a professor which the arguer doesn't pay attentions to.
Granted that the professor performs distinguished in teaching and researching, it does not followed 换个词that she also has an excellent ability in administration. Thus it is unsuitable to promote her as Department Chairperson. Furthermore, the arguer fails to take other alternatives into account such as the family immigration which cannot be solved by his suggestion. Before making sure the reasons which may drive Thomas leaving, it is unreasonable to make a suggestion of improving salary and giving her a promotion. 这段的2层意思差异太大，我觉得最好分开，一般最好一个批驳点1段
  To sum up, the argue should first 形容词make further investigation on the reason for professor's leaving, and provide more strong evidence about her research and teaching ability.简短的开头结尾很节约时间，很好。我也打算这么做，不过还是觉得稍微加点华丽点的短句更好。
有个建议就是可分清批驳的主次，或按照论据假设论点的顺序批驳，用递进式。

Charming Agilent!

使用道具举报