[a习作temp] argument140 [十日大冲刺小组]第五次作业我代表苏格拉底谢谢大家的砖头 [复制链接]

danieldmgy
UID：2275588

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 4
寄托币: 745
注册时间: 2006-11-21
精华: 0
帖子: 5

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2007-2-28 14:56:48 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

TOPIC: 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: 378 TIME: 0:28:00 DATE: 2007-2-28

The author concludes that Professor Thomas should receive a $1000 raise and a promotion to Department Chairperson in case she will leave Elm City University. To justify his point, the author cited several facts that she is popular and has research abilities. However, close scrutiny of these evidences and the author's line of reasoning reveal that they provide little credible support for the author's conclusion.

To begin with, we cannot arrive at the conclusion that Professor Thomas is popular because her classes are among the largest at the University .Maybe the classes are required that every student should take and it happens to be her classes. Without rule out such possibilities, we cannot justify the conclusion that she is popular.

Nor are we informed clearly about the research abilities of the professor. The figures the author cited are so ambiguous that we cannot tell. We just know that she has brought to the university in research grant exceeded her salary--and how about her salary, 1000 dollars each month? We do not know .In addition it is just about the last two years. How about two years before? We do not know either. Furthermore, there is not certain relation between the grant a professor brought and the research ability because we know that sometimes professors have close relationship with large companies without doing anything. Consequently, we cannot figure out the professor has strong research ability.

In addition, we get no evidences which can illustrate that the professor would leave Elem City University if she does not get the raise and promotion. It is entirely possible that the professor loves this university because she has been there though most time of her life there.

In the final analysis, if all the fallacies mentioned above are acceptable, we still cannot reach the conclusion that we raise her salary and get her a promotion to Department Chairperson. Because generally a department chairperson require the ability not only including popularity among students as well as research ability, but also including the skills of management .So we can hardly justify whether the author is right.

In conclusion, the report is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen the argument, the author should provide more compelling evidence to justify her popularity among students and research ability. In order to better evaluate the argument, we would need more information about whether she is a proper candidate for department Chairperson.