Arguement169 =美丽G程小组=小组第六次作业

claire530UID: 2363559

169.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."

As the author cites above, the Pierce University which located in a small town should follow the employment strategies of the Bronston College which is shown on some studies that offer the spouses jobs in order to attract more talented teachers. However, I’m afraid this is not going to work, here follows my perspectives.

For one thing, what the study reveals is unilateral. In other words, it means that the spouses of the male and female professors be employed in the small town is not the only reason lead to their happier lives there. I admitted that to some degree, couples living together will benefit a better married life. Whereas, there are expectations that numerous admiring couples live apart. Furthermore, a happier life is not just rely on the marriage. There are some other reasons exists when considered such as climate, life conditions, transportations. Living together is just one side, it should not be contained as the whole.

Besides the above reason, the author pointed out that offer the spouses jobs would improving the morale of the entire staff. This does not make any sense. Even if the couples living together would lead to a more pleasant life, it does not mean that this would induce a higher morale. A higher wage, better hardware facilities, and more welfares are also the qualifications in improving the morale. Solving the spouses’ jobs may be of help to some extent, but it is not the decidability. If a university wants to enhance its morale, it should pay more attention to the terms of the employment other than just focus on the spouses jobs.

When professors consider to apply for a job, the spouses’ job is not the determine reason. As I mentioned above, higher salaries, better working surroundings, the university’s reputation also the indispensable conditions. Jobs are not only the way people rely on to survival, but also the way chasing for enjoyment. If a job false to offer us a bed of roses, it is undoubtedly would be abandoned as soon as possible. This proves the words that the authors argument that professors would be more likely to accept the jobs if their spouses are offered a job is unwarranted.

Ultimately, Even though offering the spouses jobs would attract more talented professors, nevertheless, the costs would be incredibly giant, even induce the university to a huge debt. Meanwhile, it is also hard to ensure every new employee has the right to get this welfare. If the unfair treatment happens, it would do harm to the reputation of the university, therefore causes problems for employment in the future.

jessicamarineUID: 2595044

169.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." As the author cites above, the Pierce University which located in a small town should follow the employment strategies of the Bronston College which is shown on some studies that offer the spouses jobs in order to attract more talented teachers. However, I’m afraid this is not going to work, here follows my perspectives. For one thing, what the study reveals is unilateral. In other words, it means that the spouses of the male and female professors be employed in the small town is not the only reason lead to their happier lives there. I admitted that to some degree, couples living together will benefit a better married life. Whereas, there are expectations that numerous admiring couples live apart. Furthermore, a happier life is not just rely on the marriage. There are some other reasons exists when considered such as climate, life conditions, transportations. Living together is just one side, it should not be contained as the whole. Besides the above reason, the author pointed out that offer the spouses jobs would improving the morale of the entire staff. This does not make any sense. Even if the couples living together would lead to a more pleasant life, it does not mean that this would induce a higher morale. A higher wage, better hardware facilities, and more welfares are also the qualifications in improving the morale. Solving the spouses’ jobs may be of help to some extent, but it is not the decidability. If a university wants to enhance its morale, it should pay more attention to the terms of the employment other than just focus on the spouses jobs. When professors consider to apply for a job, the spouses’ job is not the determine reason. As I mentioned above, higher salaries, better working surroundings, the university’s reputation also the indispensable conditions. Jobs are not only the way people rely on to survival, but also the way chasing for enjoyment. If a job false to offer us a bed of roses, it is undoubtedly would be abandoned as soon as possible. This proves the words that the authors argument that professors would be more likely to accept the jobs if their spouses are offered a job is unwarranted. Ultimately, Even though offering the spouses jobs would attract more talented professors, nevertheless, the costs would be incredibly giant, even induce the university to a huge debt. Meanwhile, it is also hard to ensure every new employee has the right to get this welfare. If the unfair treatment happens, it would do harm to the reputation of the university, therefore causes problems for employment in the future. 绿字是我找到的每段中心词，M的思路看来是在题目的出词顺序推的，如果把 顺序调成1HAPPY-2DETERMAINE REASON- I3MPROVE MORALE- 4GIANT COST会更合理一些，这样12都是从教师角度讲，34都是从校方角度讲 觉得最后UNFAIR TREATMENT的观点蛮新颖，不错 挑错了哈： 文章多处低级语法错误，太多，我就不一一挑了，估计是时间紧张也没改， 论证当中DETERMAIN REASON 与HAPPY有很大重复，比较混乱 论证不够详细，确实举出了一些例子比如工资 气候什么的，但未能充分展开 没有结尾段，太急了吧…… IN A WORD，这篇文章静下心来好好改