Argument169 第一次发帖求批改

小飞行UID: 2980207

"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."
这两个概念能够等同么？这是文章偷换概念的地方，也是文章关键的错误。还有就是关于雇佣这么多的学者和家属，学校能否负担得起？两所学校的情况也可能是教授选择的原因。
WORDS: 422
TIME: 00:28:00
DATE: 2011-3-17 19:27:23

In this argument, the author, chairperson of Pierce University(PU), 有点重复了，这个插入语没有意义反而显得冗长。个人不是很赞同用author这个词，因为你也是author，用speaker之类的比较稳妥一点claims that PU should offer employments to the spouses of new faculty members in order to attract new professors. He cites a study conducted by Bronston College which indicates that professors prefer living with their spouses.偷换概念了，not living with their spouses, but they work in the same place. Seemingly reasonable, however the argument stands no close scrutiny for it has many logical flaws.

Firstly, the study, as it conducted by BC, may not be applicable to PU well, which in other word means PU’s potential professors may not regard living together as happiness.这里同样偷换概念 Since the author provides scant evidence about BC, such as the transportation condition, analogy between these two different schools is unpersuasive. Perhaps in BC, the main roads are full of traffic in rush hour and people average spend a lot time commuting, so no doubts that they would prefer to live with spouses. If the situation in PU is not that case, or other possible factors making living together not important as in BC，then this study renders no reliability to the author's claim.一个概念的误解，也就导致你这一段内容偏离了，文章没有说过住在一起的问题，只说了关于工作的问题。

Secondly, even assuming that coincidentally these professor want to live with their spouses, the author overlooks the high possibility that their spouse can find by themselves or already had a desirable job in this area, which totally makes the PU’s efforts valueless. 这段论证对你的文章不利，既然伴侣能够在small town找到工作那么professors就很有可能去了Also，there might be other reasons taken into consideration when these professors choosing their job. For example, if they weighs the reputation of the school and quality of the research more than their personal domesticity, they probably choose a university with up-to-date equipments instead of a university where they can live with family.

Furthermore, even more distinguished professors come to PU, there is no assurance that the morale of the entire staff would rise. Since more competent people works here, the competition between them becomes more fierce, which likely bring out a intense atmosphere. Besides, many talent people do find it harder to deal with social affairs than normal ones. Either scenario might on the contrary lower the entire morale.

Finally, as the author mentioned in this argument, there would be money spent if the university decide to offer those jobs. The author neglects other ways to spend the money better, and attract more gifted professors. For example, if the university uses this money to improve their facilities and equipments in the lab, or simply offer a higher salary to these gifted professors, they would be more likely to accept the job. Without ruling out these possibilities, the author cannot convince me that these money spent increase the likelihood of the potential professors’ accepting job offers.

In sum, the author concludes too hastily that by offering jobs to potential professors' spouses, PU can get more gifted professors accepted their offers. To better support his claim, the author should at least demonstrate the gifted teachers and researchers that PU wants prefer living with their spouses to other factors. Also the author should provide reliable evidence that their spouses need job offers. To better assess the conclusion, I need a deep research about the PU’s current research condition, whether more money spent on improving the facilities are more valuable.

蒲若苇UID: 2669670

错误：红色 修改评价：紫色 亮点：橙色   题目分析：蓝色

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 (事实). 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 (推论). 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 (推论) because, if their spouses have a chance of employment, new professors will be more likely to accept our offers. (推论)"




In this argument, the author, chairperson of Pierce University (PU) (注意原题中是：from a department chairperson, 是系主任而不是PU的chairperson，这封信的收信人才是大学的president), claims that PU should offer employments to the spouses of new faculty members in order to attract new professors. He cites a study
(原题是some studies) conducted by Bronston College (BC 注明缩写下文才可直接用) which indicates that professors prefer living with their spouses　(与原题概念不符). Seemingly reasonable, however the argument stands no close scrutiny for it has many logical flaws (模板句尽量少用).
(首段的写作方向是对的，但对原题的总结及一些审题上的小问题要注意)

Firstly, the study (studies), as it (they were) conducted by BC, may not be applicable to PU well, which in other word means PU’s potential professors may not regard living together as happiness. Since the author provides scant evidence about BC, such as the transportation condition (such as后面多举几个方面，要论证的深入，就要多问为什么，多举例反驳), analogy between these two different schools is unpersuasive. Perhaps in BC, the main roads are full of traffic in rush hours and people average spend a lot of time commuting, so no doubts that they would prefer to live (living) with spouses. If the situation in PU is not that case, or other possible factors (如果能说出是哪些factors并加以解释就更好了) making living together not important as in BC, then this study renders (these studies render) no reliability to the author's claim.
(这段要谈BC的结论不适合PU的大方向是对的，也知道用举例的方法反驳，但论述上有问题，原题中是说配偶能在一个地方工作的话他们住在小镇上会比较快乐，重点在于“employ”而不是“live”，对这个概念的理解有问题。使得这一段和原题有点偏差，其实举例transportation condition这个方面是可以的，只是需要换个说法：也许这个是让professor spouse更高兴在small town的原因而不是二人的工作地一样。总之这段不太好。)
【Secondly, even assuming that coincidentally these professor want to live with their spouses, the author overlooks the high possibility that their spouse can find by themselves or already had a desirable job in this area, which totally makes the PU’s efforts valueless.】 (思路对，表达有点奇怪) 【Also, there might be other reasons taken into consideration when these professors choosing their job. For example, if they weighs the reputation of the school and quality of the research more than their personal domesticity, they probably choose a university with up-to-date equipments instead of a university where they can live with family.】(这两句的思路正确，但用语上有欠缺，很不地道，意思表达如果我没看你的中文提纲的话可能会有理解歧义)
(这段如果按你提纲中的思路来写是可以的，但论述的整体感觉怪怪的，表达的很不清楚，我看了这段后，       去看了你的提纲，又回来再看这段，才明白你要表达的意思。建议多看看地道英语文章，提高表达能力。)

Furthermore, even more distinguished professors come to PU, there is no assurance that the morale of the entire staff would rise. Since more competent people works here, the competition between them becomes more fierce, which likely bring out a intense atmosphere. Besides, many talent people do find it harder to deal with social affairs than normal ones. Either scenario might on the contrary lower the entire morale. (这段不错！)

Finally, as the author mentioned in this argument, there would be money spent if the university decide to offer those jobs. The author neglects other ways to spend the money better, and attract more gifted professors. For example, if the university uses this money to improve their facilities and equipments in the lab, or simply offer a higher salary to these gifted professors, they would be more likely to accept the job. Without ruling out these possibilities, the author cannot convince me that these money spent increase the likelihood of the potential professors’ accepting job offers. (这段不错！讨论点和第三段差不多，都是讲professors在选大学的时候可能看重其他原因，可以与第三段合并为一段进行论述)

In sum, the author concludes too hastily that by offering jobs to potential professors' spouses, PU can get more gifted professors accepted their offers. To better support his claim, the author should at least demonstrate the gifted teachers and researchers that PU wants prefer living with their spouses to other factors. Also the author should provide reliable evidence that their spouses need job offers. To better assess the conclusion, I need a deep research about the PU’s current research condition, whether more money spent on improving the facilities are more valuable.
(看来这段改过了，还不错！)

小结：
（1）主要问题是原题中的概念理解错误，导致第二段论述有问题，本来原题错在偷换概念，但你论述的时候也在偷换概念，这段显得特别乱。
（2）第三段表达上有问题，很chinglish的感觉，你的想法是对的，但写出来让人很读不懂，拒我推测：你是写了详细的中文，然后汉译英翻译过来的。句子很不地道。建议多看英语文章，搜issue用的例子或是论据时多注意英文表达的方式。如果有外国朋友，可以写写小短文拿给他看看，提提语言表达上的建议。
（3）后三段写的还不错，攻击得比较到位。记住：如果要论述的深入，就要多问为什么，多举例，多写文中前提可能得到的结论与原题中推论的矛盾之处。我在原题中标出了3个推论，都是可以攻击的点。
（4）总之，你有想法但没能很好的表达出来，这个还需要多练习。