argument 169 BY美月

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."

对于同样位于小城市的Bronston学院所作的一些研究发现，不论男性或女性教授，当他们的配偶在相同的城市有工作时，就更乐于在这些小城市生活。因此，为了吸引最有天分的教师和研究人员加入我们的员工队伍并提高我们员工的士气，我们Pierce大学应该为每一个我们所雇佣的新员工的配偶提供就业机会。尽管我们并不期望所有就业机会都会被接受或被看作是理想的工作，我们在这项努力上的投入显然是值得的，因为如果新教授的配偶有就业机会，他们将更乐于在我们学校就职。


原文剖析：B调查-夫妻同城更开心-人才会因此选择工作地点-P应提供每位配偶工作-吸引人才、绝对值得
攻击点：
调查可靠性：B一家调查，不客观 【B小城条件极好】【数量】【全面】

1 错误类比：B P 条件不同，仅仅小城一点相同不足以说明问题，【B条件更好】
2 错误假设：更开心=\=天才可以因此跳槽
常人VS 天才 【薪金】【设施】【前景】
3 建议不可行；都提供不现实 【耗资耗力】【配偶本身工作比较，极有可能不跳槽】

16：40
By citing the report by B that professors would be happier with their spouses working in the same geological area, the department chairperson claims that to attract the most gifted teachers and researchers to their faculty P should offer employments to each of the new professors’ spouses，the investment of which, in the arguer’s opinion, is clearly a well investment. The chairperson’s suggestion seem to be sensible at the first glance, however, further analysis reveals several critical logical problems.
In citing the mere fact that B and P both locate in small towns, the author too hastily concludes that the study result could also apply to P. However, this is not necessarily the case. Many other different factors between the two small towns should be considered, such as the differences in climate, morels, economy, etc. It is entirely possible that B is located in a small town where the welfare is great, the climate is agreeable, the transportation is convenient, however the town where P locates is not attractive at all, with poor economy, tough climate, annoying transportation, just imagine who will be happier to drag his or her spouse into that bog. Anyway, if this is the case, the arguer’s analogy is seriously fallacious.
Even if the study result could apply to P, the author commits a low-leveled mistake by equating ‘would be happier for this’ with ‘would hop job for this. As we all know, while selecting the job, people consider many other factors except for whether their spouses work in the same city, such as the payment and the prospect of the job. What’s more P’s aim employees are the so-called ‘most gifted teachers and researchers’, who will undoubtedly have a much higher demand than the ordinary. Common sense tells me that,
, nearly all of the ‘most gifted teachers and researchers’ might have already got an admirable work, so the power for their job-hopping have to be enormous, for example a better teaching and researching environment, with the most advanced facilities, highest academic atmosphere, etc. Without the information that P is such a satisfying college for the ‘most gifted teachers and researchers’, we just cannot accept the chairman’s optimistic assumption.
Moreover, the suggestion that providing every new professor’ spouse a job is impractical from any aspect. To attract the most gifted, the employment offered for their spouses, who might have got a satisfying job already, should be ‘not bad’ at least, however, not easy to find a satisfying job, especially today-the tough time. So the money invested on this could not be low. Thus, we have good reason to view the author’s assertion that offering every new professor an employment for their spouse, regardless whether it would be appreciated and effective as impractical generosity. Moreover, the author overlooks the fact that the new professors might not need the college to find their spouses jobs. If so, P’s effort would be in vain.
Finally, we find no evidence that taking the author’s suggestion morale of the entire stuff would improve. The morale of the entire does not depend on the new professors only. The author’s suggestion might be nice for the newcomers; however, the clearly contrasted treatment between the new and the old would inevitably cause discontent among other employees, thus having a negative effect on the morale of the entire staff.
To sum up, the chairman’s suggestion is unconvincing. To better support it, the chairman must provide sound evidence that it is OK to apply the study by B to P and that the teaching and researching environment would not hinder P’s attracting the most gifted. Moreover, the author’s ‘everyone theory’ needs some more practical change. To better evaluate the argument, we would also need to know whether P would take effective measures to mollify other employees.