【hawk】7月21日任务——argument169

谦行天下UID: 2797557

1. Argument169——请于7月21日晚11点之前上交作文，7月22日互改并于22日晚11点前上交自改文。

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."

2、issue131 互改并上交自改文
3、BS 题目：issue103

103"The study of history has value only to the extent that it is relevant to our daily lives."

rose-小谦-晓航（后改前）

hwslqcUID: 2861597

写了2遍才达到规定时间以内，啊啊啊啊啊啊啊啊啊啊，无语了。。。。。



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."
WORDS: 524          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2010-8-4 19:32:35

The recommendation that Pierce University(PU) should offer jobs to the spouse of each new faculty member they hire seems to be sound and convincing at first glance. After all, the arguer provide the studies conducted by Bronston College(BC), which reveals the professors are happier living in the town there their spouse is employed. However, close scrutiny of this evidence reveals that it can not lend to credible support to the final recommendation. The reasons are stated as below.

First of all, the studies conducted by BC can not lead to the mid conclusion that the professors in PU will be happier to work in the place where their spouses are hired. How the study is made? What are the respondents to the survey? What is the total number of the respondents? Are these respondents representative? As the chairperson does not cite any information about the studies, I am not sure the studies are convincing. Even if the studies are convincing, the author can not draw the mid conclusion from the studies because he or she neglect the difference between PU and BC. It is possible that it is culture in BC or the town where BC locates determined the result of these studies and the culture here is totally different in such aspect. Unless the author can provide more convincing evidence to clearly ruling out the possibilities I mentioned above, the recommendation will be undermined.

Even if the mid conclusion is ensured, which is of course an unwarranted assumption, it is too early for the author to claim that PU can attract most gifted teachers by such revolution. As we all know, whether to choose a university to work for is based on a lot of factors. If the salary are not satisfied, or if the teaching tools and researching implements are all out of date, or if the reputation of  the university is awful, the professors will not be attracted only because their spouse also work for the university. Without ruling all these possibilities, the author need to provide more convincing information to guarantee the gifted professor will be attracted.

Last but not least, even if the premises are all tenable, the recommendation is still doubtable because of the disadvantages of the recommendation. If the study atmosphere or the reputation of PU will be destroyed by the spouse of the professors, which is highly possible, such recommendation should be rejected. And if PU only offer employment to the spouse of each new faculty member they hire, the old faculty member will be provoked, which will definitely lead to the opposite of improving the morale of the entire staff, as the old staff is always more than the new faculty.

After pointing out so many flaws in the argument, now we can say the study can not be relied on by the recommendation. And maybe the recommendation is reasonable, but the author have to give more persuasive, practical and professional information before claim so. Like the difference and same between PU and BC, the opinion of the professors of those gifted professor and other factors that may influence the choice of those gifted professors.

zhangxiaohang1UID: 2705669

改谦行
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." 


WORDS: 438
TIME: 01:05:03
DATE: 2010/7/21 21:50:43

Referring to the result of some studies, professors living with their spouses who are employed in the same small town tend to be happier, the arguer【换成chairperson好些,下同】 proposes a way to attract talent teachers to Pierce University (PU). That is offering working opportunity to the spouse of each new faculty. It seems lies some truth in his statement; however, a careful analysis reveals several flaws discussed below:

There lies some doubts about those studies' result and it's suitable to another university. Firstly, the arguer never provides us information about how those studies are conducted. The argument indicates that those studies are conducted by small-town-located Bronston College (BC), but it does not tell about how they choose the samples, and how many samples have they analyzed. If the researchers only analyzed a small numbers of professors in BC, the result can not standby the arguer. Moreover, whether these samples can represent the gifted professors is unknown. If the samples are ordinary professors, which means gifted professors may not agree with the result, the result can not used to attract gifted teachers as expected. As we all know, gifted professors often behave abnormal and even the majority【这个我觉得用的不好，弱化点比较好】 of them do not choose to get married. Secondly, the arguer fails to substantiate that the result is suitable to PU. PU and BC could be different in reputation. If PU earns much more less reputation than BC, the suggested method may not significant. Thus, the money invested in this effort may in vain. 
这段说了两点，可以拆开
Secondly, the suggestion of offering employment to the spouse of each new faculty member is headlong decision. Not every new faculty member would like to have spouses; not every spouse would like to work; not every spouse prefers to work in an university; and not every spouse is suitable to work in a university.【好】 Thus, by offering working chances in the university could find a good working place for faculty's spouse and attract more professors.[这句没看懂。。。]
这段说spouse不一定要那个工作？最后一句没看懂。。。



Lastly, the arguer omit【省略，遗漏，不太确定这么用对不对】 the bad effects when a couple working at the same places. Private things distract their working efficiency and same working time leaves them no time to keep an eye for the family. In addition, according to psychologists, staying no distance twenty-four hours will not be good for the relationship of a couple. In many famous companies, there is one rule that employees cannot date and marry their colleagues. Thus, couples working in the same geographic area can be happy but not in the same institutes.
这段想的挺好的！会影响工作！
All in all, to substantiate the arguer's assertion, the arguer needs to glean[To collect bit by bit,我觉得直接用列举就挺好的] more information: (1) the scientific supporting of those studies; (2) the relevance of PU to those studies. In addition, the arguer needs consider more factors when gives advice.
对了FA你没有说？可以稍微提一下！

总体挺流畅的！挺好的！加油！

zhangxiaohang1UID: 2705669

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."
WORDS: 386          TIME: 01:10:00          DATE: 2010-7-21 19:45:30

The chairperson's conclusion that Pierce University (PU) should offer employment to the spouse of each new faculty member we hire is well-presented, but not thoroughly well-reasoned. This suggestion is based on the studies, which are open to doubt, by Bronston College (BC) and an assumption that the interest of professors in BC are equal to the most gifted ones. And also he has no evidence to prove that the benefits we get from this project over what we spend in it.
First of all, in this argument chairperson only shows us the result of studies without its total number of the sample and when the studies did. If the studies are done in decades ago, the situation and people's idea about living would change. Then no one can ensure that professors are still happier to live in small towns with their spouses. In addition, BC located in a small town, which in general will be lacking of gifted faculties. Hence those samples's view in the studies may not stand for gifted professors'. In short, there is no evidence to strength the studies' persuasion.
Secondly, granted that the sample in these studies are most gifted professors in a large number and recently do, the differeces between BC and PU could let this studies less useful for PU. The chairperson has ignored that whether our instruments, reputition, surroundings, salaries and so forth are equal to BC. These differences may contribute to that BC and PU are so incomparable that though PU offers employment to the spouses, gifted teachers will not come.
Thirdly, the feasibilty of this suggestion is open to doubt. Are there many gifted faculties available? Do their spouses need to be employed? How many positions we could provide to new faculty mumber' spouses? Will their spouses accept our offers? How much will PU cost in this project? Do we truly need these gifted faculties? Will they bring PU adequate benefits such as science outlay, improvement of reputation, more students and others like this?
In sum, the suggestion which is to provide employment to faculties’ spouses could be effective. But if the chairperson provide more datas about the studies and compare BC and PU in enough parts, this argument will not sway his decision. To further bolster the argument, perhaps more consideration about this suggetion is better.

ROse_MaryUID: 2790464

占

ROse_MaryUID: 2790464

The chairperson of the department wish Pierce University attract the most gifted teachers and researchers to their faculty and improve the morale of their entire staff in this letter. He raised a suggestion that Pierce University should offer employment to the spouse of each new faculty member they hire according to the studies conducted by Bronston College. As first glance, this may be an attractive solution, but careful weighing on the mind, we find that there are several critical flaws.

To begin with, the department chairperson had made a false inference that only if the professors feel that the university will let them happily work, the university will attract more gifted teachers and researchers to their faculty. No evidence shows that how the teachers and researchers select the school as a job is based whether they feel happy when they are working. There are some other factors that they will take into consideration, such as the research atmosphere, the health insurance, the reputation of the school etc. Even if Pierce University’s offering jobs in the local town to the spouse make every new faculty feel happier than other schools, it is entirely possible that the teachers give up the chance for the bad reputation of Pierce University in the field where he is doing research.

Moreover, the result of the studies conducted by Bronston College is not necessarily fit Pierce University. The similarity between the two schools given in the letter is only that they are both located in a small town, while the other information about a school like the reputation, the living condition, etc are not offered the reader. Under such condition, it made no sense to do any analogies between these two schools. So even if the study conducted by Bronston College is right and the professors really feel happier when their spouses working in the same area, there has been a possibility that the other conditions in Pierce University, like the research atmosphere, are not like Bronston College that will lead them all feel unhappy.

In the end, offering the employment to the spouse of each new faculty member Pierce University hire is not a reasonable proposal. From the letter, we can infer that Pierce University had not carried out a spouse-caring system since the department chairperson wrote this letter. Therefore, how the old members would feel, if every new member’s spouse will be offered an employment? Perhaps the morale of the whole staff will not be improved, but to be worsened because of the protest from the old faculties.

In summary, the president should make more contrast between the two schools, analyze the true factors in Pierce University that will arrest the most gifted teachers and researchers, and make the spouse-caring plan carefully.
以前写的，见笑了~

谦行天下UID: 2797557

改Rose
Wrong
New word to me
Good expression
My comment

The chairperson of the department wish Pierce University attract the most gifted teachers and researchers to their faculty and improve the morale of their entire staff in this letter. He raised a suggestion that Pierce University should offer employment to the spouse of each new faculty member they hire according to the studies conducted by Bronston College. As first glance, this may be an attractive solution, but careful weighing on the mind, we find that there are several critical flaws.

To begin with, the department chairperson had made a false inference that only if the professors feel that the university will let them happily work, the university will attract more gifted teachers and researchers to their faculty. No evidence shows that how the teachers and researchers select the school as a job is based whether they feel happy when they are working. There are some other factors that they will take into consideration, such as the research atmosphere, the health insurance, the reputation of the school etc. Even if Pierce University’s offering jobs in the local town to the spouse make every new faculty feel happier than other schools, it is entirely possible that the teachers give up the chance for the bad reputation of Pierce University in the field where he is doing research.
别有他因，这个观点，清新流畅。但是，关于题目中引用的study，作者并没有明示，这些studies的对象是哪些地方的教授（也许不是Bronston College），题目中仅仅明示conductor come from BC.
Moreover, the result of the studies conducted by Bronston College is not necessarily fit Pierce University. The similarity between the two schools given in the letter is only that they are both located in a small town, while the other information about a school like the reputation, the living condition, etc are not offered the reader. Under such condition, it made no sense to do any analogies between these two schools. So even if the study conducted by Bronston College is right and the professors really feel happier when their spouses working in the same area, there has been a possibility that the other conditions in Pierce University, like the research atmosphere, are not like Bronston College that will lead them all feel unhappy.
Rose, 你不觉得这段观点跟上段“换汤不换药”吗？还是说，别有他因，这两段可以合一呢。

In the end, offering the employment to the spouse of each new faculty member Pierce University hire is not a reasonable proposal. From the letter, we can infer that Pierce University had not carried out a spouse-caring system since the department chairperson wrote this letter. [Good point!]Therefore, how the old members would feel, if every new member’s spouse will be offered an employment? Perhaps the morale of the whole staff will not be improved, but to be worsened because of the protest from the old faculties. 来句总结吧！

In summary, the president should make more contrast between the two schools, analyze the true factors in Pierce University that will arrest the most gifted teachers and researchers, and make the spouse-caring plan carefully.
总得来说，语言很好。但是攻击不是很到位！

===================改9号========
Wrong
New word to me
Good expression
My comment

The recommendation that Pierce University(PU) should offer jobs to the spouse of each new faculty member they hire seems to be sound and convincing at first glance. After all, the arguer provide the studies conducted by Bronston College(BC), which reveals the professors are happier living in the town there【where】 their spouse is employed. However, close scrutiny of this evidence reveals that it can not lend to credible support to the final recommendation. The reasons are stated as below.

First of all, the studies conducted by BC can not lead to the mid conclusion that the professors in PU will be happier to work in the place where their spouses are hired. How the study is made? What are the respondents to the survey? What is the total number of the respondents? Are these respondents representative? As the chairperson does not cite any information about the studies, I am not sure the studies are convincing换种书面一点的表述较好. Even if the studies are convincing, the author can not draw the mid conclusion from the studies because he or she neglect the difference between PU and BC. It is possible that it is culture in BC or the town where BC locates determined the result of these studies and the culture here is totally different in such aspect. Unless the author can provide more convincing evidence to clearly ruling out the possibilities I mentioned above, the recommendation will be undermined.
survey证据不足；且FA错误
Even if the mid conclusion is ensured, which is of course an unwarranted assumption, it is too early for the author to claim that PU can attract most gifted teachers by such revolution. As we all know, whether to choose a university to work for is based on a lot of factors. If the salary are not satisfied, or if the teaching tools and researching implements are all out of date, or if the reputation of  the university is awful, the professors will not be attracted【join to the university】 only because their spouse also work for[also can find a job in] the university. Without ruling out all these possibilities, the author need to provide more convincing information to guarantee the gifted professor will be attracted.
选择学校别有他因
Last but not least, even if the premises are all tenable, the recommendation is still doubtable because of the disadvantages of the recommendation. If the study atmosphere or the reputation of PU will be destroyed by the spouse of the professors, which is highly possible, such recommendation should be rejected.奇想！ And if PU only offer employment to the spouse of each new faculty member they hire, the old faculty member will be provoked, which will definitely lead to the opposite of improving the morale of the entire staff, as the old staff is always more than the new faculty.语言需要改改~~不effective
可能有副作用
After pointing out so many flaws in the argument, now we can say the study can not be relied on by the recommendation. And maybe the recommendation is reasonable, but the author have to give more persuasive, practical and professional information before claim so. Like the difference and same【不如comparison来得好么】 between PU and BC, the opinion of the professors of those gifted professor and other factors that may influence the choice of those gifted professors.
我没啥可挑剔的了。。。。
9号，你有时间也帮我看看。。我觉得这个题目很活。。。。

谦行天下UID: 2797557

TOPIC: ARGUMENT169 - The following appeared in a letter from a department chairperson to the president of Pierce University.

WORDS: 438
TIME: 01:05:03
DATE: 2010/7/21 21:50:43

Referring to the result of some studies, professors living with their spouses who are employed in the same small town tend to be happier, the arguer proposes a way to attract talent teachers to Pierce University (PU). That is offering working opportunity to the spouse of each new faculty. It seems lies some truth in his statement; however, a careful analysis reveals several flaws discussed below:

There lies some doubts about those studies' result and it’s suitable to another university. Firstly, the arguer never provides us information about how those studies are conducted. The argument indicates that those studies are conducted by small-town-located Bronston College (BC), but it does not tell about how they choose the samples, and how many samples have they analyzed. If the researchers only analyzed a small numbers of professors in BC, the result can not standby the arguer. Moreover, whether these samples can represent the gifted professors is unknown. If the samples are ordinary professors, which means gifted professors may not agree with the result, the result can not used to attract gifted teachers as expected. As we all know, gifted professors often behave abnormal and even the majority of them do not choose to get married. Secondly, the arguer fails to substantiate that the result is suitable to PU. PU and BC could be different in reputation. If PU earns much more less reputation than BC, the suggested method may not significant. Thus, the money invested in this effort may in vain.

Secondly, the suggestion of offering employment to the spouse of each new faculty member is headlong decision. Not every new faculty member would like to have spouses; not every spouse would like to work; not every spouse prefers to work in an university; and not every spouse is suitable to work in a university. Thus, by offering working chances in the university could find a good working place for faculty's spouse and attract more professors.

Lastly, the arguer omit the bad effects when a couple working at the same places. Private things distract their working efficiency and same working time leaves them no time to keep an eye for the family. In addition, according to psychologists, staying no distance twenty-four hours will not be good for the relationship of a couple. In many famous companies, there is one rule that employees cannot date and marry their colleagues. Thus, couples working in the same geographic area can be happy but not in the same institutes.

All in all, to substantiate the arguer's assertion, the arguer needs to glean more information: (1) the scientific supporting of those studies; (2) the relevance of PU to those studies. In addition, the arguer needs consider more factors when gives advice.

=================第一次自改文=========================
多谢晓航！
那个FA，我在第一段有提到~~
Referring to the result of some studies, professors living with their spouses who are employed in the same small town tend to be happier; the chairperson proposes a way to attract talent teachers to Pierce University (PU). That is offering working opportunity to the spouse of each new faculty. It seems lies some truth in his statement; however, a careful analysis reveals several flaws discussed below:

There lies some doubts about those studies' result and its suitable to another university. Firstly, the chairperson never provides us information about how those studies are conducted. The argument indicates that those studies are conducted by small-town-located Bronston College (BC), but it does not tell about how they choose the samples, and how many samples have they analyzed. If the researchers only analyzed a small numbers of professors in BC, the result can not support the chairperson. Moreover, whether these samples can represent the gifted professors is unknown. If the samples are ordinary professors, which means gifted professors may not agree with the result, the result can not used to attract gifted teachers as expected. As we all know, gifted professors often behave abnormal and even they are likely to choose to be single. Secondly, the chairperson fails to substantiate that the result is suitable to PU. PU and BC could be different in reputation, size and influence to society. If PU earns much less reputation than BC, the suggested method may not significant. Thus, the money invested in this effort may in vain.

Secondly, the suggestion of offering employment to the spouse of each new faculty member is headlong decision. Not every new faculty member would like to have a spouse; not every spouse would like to work; not every spouse prefers to work in a university; and not every spouse is suitable to work in a university.
Thus, by offering working chances in the university may not find a good working place for faculty's spouse and attract more professors.

Lastly, the chairperson has not take into consideration the bad effects when a couple working at the same places. Private things distract their working efficiency and same working time leaves them no time to keep an eye for the family. In addition, according to psychologists, staying no distance twenty-four hours will not be good for the relationship of a couple. In many famous companies, there is one rule that employees cannot date and marry their colleagues. Thus, couples working in the same geographic area may be happy but not in the same institutes.

All in all, to substantiate the chairperson's assertion, the chairperson needs to present more information about: (1) the scientific supporting of those studies; (2) the relevance of PU to those studies. In addition, the chairperson needs consider more factors when gives advice.