argument140 【红尘笑沧桑】互改小组 第七次作业

forevarsenalUID: 2737856

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: 521
TIME: 00:21:11
DATE: 2009-12-21 18:31:55

In this report, the author recommends that Professor Tomas receive %10,000 raise and a promotion to Department Chairperson in consideration of her demonstrated teaching and research abilities. To support this conclusion, the report mentions that Professor Tomas' 17 years work has proved herself to be well worth her annual salary of & 50,000. He also refers that Professor Thomas' 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 the last two years. What's more, the authors worried that Professor Thomas will leave Elm City University for another college if they don't do these. At first sight, the report seems to be quite reasonable. While further reflections show that the report is suffered from several flaws preventing it from being invulnerable.

The first flaw involves in one of the assertions that Professor Thomas is well worth her annual salary of &50,000. It is illogical to conclude that someone is worthy of enjoying a raise in salary and promotion since he is well worth her present salary.
Moreover, we are not sure that Professor Thomas is equal to Department Chairperson. As Department Chairperson, she would have to solve many affairs that have no business with her botany and thus spend less time and energy on teaching and research. If Professor Thomas failed to balance these two different roles, we may lost an excellent professor and receive an unsuccessful Department Chairperson.

The second flaw is base on the invalid conclusion Profession Thomas is popular among students because of the large size of her classes. It is possible that her courses are compulsory courses for students from different departments and thus more students attend her classes. Even if her courses are optional, students may also prefer to choose her courses since they think these classes are useful for their further study.

Another flaws of this reports is the unwarranted assumption that Professor Thomas will receive the same amount of money as he did in the past two years in the future. We are informed that Professor Thomas has been working in this university for 17 years. It is entirely possible that she wish to decrease the research programs gradually and enjoy a rest. If so, the money she brings in research grants will surely decrease.


Last but not the least, the report hasn't show any evidences to prove that Professor Thomas is about to leave and hence we cannot offer a raise and promotion just according to an assumption. Even though she wants to leave Elm City University, salary and position may be not the very reason why she leaves. As a professor, she would consider other factors such as research condition, reputation of the university or living environment.

In summary, the authors of the reports need to make sure whether Professor Thomas is equal to the position of Department Chairperson or not. They are also expected to know her plans. If she really want to leave, they have to clear the very reasons rather than offer a raise and promotion based on nothing.

bigeyes_1314UID: 2736288

In this report, the author recommends that Professor Tomas receive %10,000 raise and a promotion to Department Chairperson in consideration of her demonstrated teaching and research abilities. To support this conclusion, the report(author) mentions that Professor Tomas' 17 years work has proved herself to be well worth her annual salary of & 50,000. He also refers that Professor Thomas' 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 the last two years. What's more, the authors(delete s) worried(注意时态用一般现在时b比较好，worries) that Professor Thomas will leave Elm City University for another college if they don't do these. At first sight, the report seems to be quite reasonable. While further reflections show that the report is suffered from several flaws preventing it from being invulnerable.

The first flaw involves in one of the assertions that Professor Thomas is well worth her annual salary of &50,000. It is illogical to conclude that someone is worthy of enjoying a raise in salary and promotion since he is well worth her present salary.
Moreover, we are not sure that Professor Thomas is equal to(you mean: is suitable for the position as Department Chairperson?) Department Chairperson. As Department Chairperson, she would have to solve many affairs that have no business with her botany and thus spend less time and energy on teaching and research. If Professor Thomas failed to balance these two different roles, we may lost(lose) an excellent professor and receive an unsuccessful Department Chairperson.

The second flaw is base on the invalid conclusion Profession Thomas is popular among students because of the large size of her classes. It is possible that her courses are compulsory courses for students from different departments and thus more students attend her classes. Even if her courses are optional, students may also prefer to choose her courses since they think these classes are useful for their further study.

Another flaws of this reports is the unwarranted assumption that Professor Thomas will receive(bring) the same amount of money as he did in the past two years in the future. We are informed that Professor Thomas has been working in this university for 17 years. It is entirely possible that she wish to decrease the research programs gradually and enjoy a rest. If so, the money she brings in research grants will surely decrease.


Last but not the least, the report hasn't show any evidences to prove that Professor Thomas is about to leave and hence we cannot offer a raise and promotion just according to an assumption. Even though she wants to leave Elm City University, salary and position may be not the very(only) reason why she leaves. As a professor, she would consider other factors such as research condition, reputation of the university or living environment.

In summary, the authors(author) of the reports(report) need(needs) to make sure whether Professor Thomas is equal to the position of Department Chairperson or not. They are also expected to know her plans. If she really want to leave, they have to clear the very(exact) reasons rather than offer a raise and promotion based on nothing.
看了一下你的写作时间，你还是有时间剩余的，建议你写完后，仔细检查，其实文章中都是一些很小的语法错误。

forevarsenalUID: 2737856

TOPIC: ISSUE17 - "There are two types of laws: just and unjust. Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and, even more importantly, to disobey and resist unjust laws."
WORDS: 527      
1、首先，遵守法律是每个公民的义务。任何通过合法程序发布的法律都必须遵守。
2、法律的公正与否不是由个人决定的。
3、公民有合法抵制不公正法律的义务，并通过合法程序废除和修订法律

To maintain the order of our society and protect the administration of governments, modern society becomes a rule-by-law society in which everyone and very activity should under the control and supervision of laws developed along with the evolution of human society. If not, one or one activity will be punished or forbidden. Meanwhile, another kind of saying, there are two types of laws: just and unjust, and people should obey just laws and say no to unjust laws at the same time, become popular nowadays. As far as I concern, it isn't as reasonable as what we think at the first sight.

First and foremost, for a citizen of modern society, it is his basic responsibility to obey laws that have been published through lawful process. Once a law is to take effect, no matter what it is about, every citizen should obey it without any doubt. Wendell Phillips, American leader against slavery, once said that:" Every law has no atom of strength, as far as no public opinion supports it". If people who have broken a law won't receive any punishment he deserved, the order would be disturbed, and thus other people would be confused about the standard weighing right or wrong. The finally consequence of that is the chaos of the whole society.  

Furthermore, we had better to enquiry ourselves that what's unjust laws. The problem is that the law is a matter of public record, while justice is an intensely personal matter. Since what satisfy a group of people on one hand would probably strike another group of people as an unwarranted imposition on the other hand, it is totally dubious for an individual to make the decision on whether obey the law or not only based on their own appetite. An unjust law according to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is “Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.” In history, people have issued many different kinds of unjust laws, such as laws protect slavery and apartheid. These law is absolutely violate humanitarian and impede social progress.      

When we finally get acquainted with the true meaning of unjust laws, the next step is naturally about what we can do when we are faced with unjust laws. Dr. Martin Luther King argued that we should break it openly: "An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law". What King has done in his age against the unjust law, segregation laws, is a perfect model instructing us what to do. To unjust laws, we shouldn't boycott them through violence; on the contrary, we should fight against these laws legally and peacefully. As Thomas Jefferson puts it,"no society can make a perpetual constitution or even a perpetual law". But to defend the sanctity and authority of law, any amendment of law failed to represent the general will of the citizens should through certain judicial process which has been ruled at length.

In summary, in a democratic society the state represent the general will of the citizens, and thus each citizen should pursue his own real interests complying with the laws. Meanwhile, when we are faced with unjust laws, it is our moral responsibility to fight against them legally and try our best to amend or abolish them through judicial process.

bigeyes_1314UID: 2736288

To maintain the order of our society and protect the administration of governments, modern society becomes a rule-by-law society in which everyone and very(every) activity should under the control and supervision of laws developed along with the evolution of human society. If not, one or one activity will be punished or forbidden. Meanwhile, another kind of saying, there are two types of laws: just and unjust, and people should obey just laws and say no to unjust laws at the same time, Which becomes popular nowadays. As far as I concern, it isn't as reasonable as what we think at the first sight.

First and foremost, for a citizen of modern society, it is his basic responsibility to obey laws that have been published through lawful process. Once a law is to take effect, no matter what it is about, every citizen should obey it without any doubt. Wendell Phillips, American leader against slavery, once said that:" Every law has no atom of strength, as far as no public opinion supports it". If people who have broken a law won't receive any punishment he deserved, the order would be disturbed, and thus other people would be confused about the standard weighing right or wrong. The finally(final) consequence of that is the chaos of the whole society.  

Furthermore, we had better to(delete to) enquiry ourselves that what's unjust laws. The problem is that the law is a matter of public record, while justice is an intensely personal matter. Since what satisfy(satisfies) a group of people on one hand would probably strike another group of people as an unwarranted imposition on the other hand, it is totally dubious for an individual to make the decision on whether obey the law or not only based on their own appetite. An unjust law according to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is “Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.”(这句话放在你自己的对于不公正法律的理解之前更好，先说伟人对于不公正法律的界定，再说自己的） In history, people have issued many different kinds of unjust laws based on this definition, such as laws protect slavery and apartheid. These law is absolutely violate humanitarian and impede social progress.      

When we finally get acquainted with the true meaning of unjust laws, the next step is naturally about what we can do when we are faced with unjust laws. Dr. Martin Luther King argued that we should break it openly: "An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law". What King has done in his age against the unjust law, segregation laws, is a perfect model instructing us what to do. To unjust laws, we shouldn't boycott them through violence; on the contrary, we should fight against these laws legally and peacefully. As Thomas Jefferson puts it,"no society can make a perpetual constitution or even a perpetual law". But to defend the sanctity and authority of law, any amendment of law failed to represent the general will of the citizens should through certain judicial process which has been ruled at length.

In summary, in a democratic society the state represent the general will of the citizens, and thus each citizen should pursue his own real interests complying with the laws. Meanwhile, when we are faced with unjust laws, it is our moral responsibility to fight against them legally and try our best to amend or abolish them through judicial process.