@@茶叶蛋炒饭@@ 第十三次作业 argu140 请组员跟帖

mikestoneUID: 2734495

In this report, the arguer recommends that Professor Thomas receive a $10,000 raise and a promotion to Department Chairperson. He proposes some reasons and fears, however, they are not convincing.

To begin with, the speaker wants to prove that Professor Thomas is well worth her annual salary of $50,000, whereas he conducts some fallacy in his evidences. First, although Professor Thomas’s classes are among the largest at the university, this cannot indicate that she is popular among student. It is possible that she teaches general courses such as elementary calculus and in these classes there are always many students. So, if this is true, the speaker cannot conclude that she is popular just according to the population of her classes. Moreover, the fact, that her classes are largest one, doesn't imply that she fulfills many tasks in teaching. Maybe, she just teaches one or two courses; and her contributions to teaching may be little. Second, the money, the Professor Thomas has brought to the university in the research grants, has exceeded her salary in each of the last two years, however, this cannot make sure that she will continue to brought more money in future. Maybe, in the last two years, she contributed herself to a research program of a big company, and the university received some research grants. However, the results don't satisfy the leaders of company. And in this year, the program is cancelled. So, without these details, the speaker cannot guarantee that she will bring more money to the university. Therefore, the conclusion that she is worth her annual salary is unpersuasive.

Furthermore, the arguer doesn't provide the contributions of other professors. We know there are many excellent professors in a department. The speaker cannot just focus on one of them. It is entirely possible that there are 5 professors, who are more excellent than Professor Thomas. They teach more courses and bring more grants. So, without the information about other professor, the recommendations that raise her salary and position are not convincing.

In addition, there is not evidence to show that Professor Thomas will leave the university for another one without the raise and promotion. Maybe, she is satisfied with her work and salary and doesn’t even consider applying for promotion. If the fact is like that, the fears are completely unnecessary.

In sum, the recommendation is unconvincing. To make it more persuasive, the speaker need to provide more information about Professor Thomas’s abilities and contributions, other professors’ information, and desires of Professor Thomas.

Stone改link424
The report of the Committee on Faculty Promotions and Salaries suggested that we should raise Professor Thomas's salaries and promote him to Department Chairperson. All of these are based on her abilities of teaching and researching. It also noted that Professor will leave if we do not give him such a promotion and raise of salaries. However, it failed to prove that she has excellent abilities of teaching and researching. Even assuming that she has such abilities, we also cannot believe that she will leave because of deficiency in material award.


First of all, her classes are one of the largest classes at the university cannot demonstrate that she is adept at teaching. Yet the report did not give any information what the classes she taught. Perhaps these classes are obligatory for many majors' students; or these classes are welcomed by many students, no matter who teach these classes. We should get more information about her classes before we judge her teaching abilities. Hence, we cannot claim that students attend her classes is due to her excellent abilities of teaching.

Secondly, the report only gives the information of Professor Thomas's research grants, and there is no comparison with other professor's research grant. Maybe there are also many professors have numerous research grants at the university, or even more than Professor Thomas's. The report neglects comparison which the most important factors to decide whether she is superior to other professors in the research area. Therefore, we cannot assure that she is better than other professors in research area only by her grants’ number.


Assuming that her teaching and researching abilities is good, there is also no evidence to demonstrate that she is fit to the Department Chairperson. There is little causality between abilities of teaching and researching and capacity of management, in other words a good professor may be not a good Chairperson.


We also infer that she will leave the university because of material condition. Perhaps the university has the most outstanding research condition in the field of botany. And maybe the  Elm City University is a celebrated botany university. Thus, there is no reason that Professor Thomas will leave without promotion and raise of salaries.

To sum up, there are several assumptions. Firstly, the report assumes that whose number of classes' students is enormous then they are good at teaching. Secondly, whose research grants have exceeded salary then their research abilities are excellent. Thirdly, good teacher and researcher is suit to Department Chairperson. Finally without good material condition the professor will leave. These assumptions are not compelling and reasonable. Thus, we cannot make decision to raise her salary and promote her to Department Chairperson yet before we get more information.

Link：
我个人觉得开头和结尾可以瘦瘦身，当然官方范文开头和结尾也确实很多，我只是怕你到时候没有时间写这么大的开头和结尾。
整体来说基本上没有什么可以改动的。

shenxianhuUID: 2455394

by SHX

In this report, a committee of Elm City University recommends increasing Professor Thomas’s salary and promoting her to Department Chairperson based on her effectiveness of working and teaching. In order to support this recommendation, the report points out following facts(1) her classes are among the largest in the university ;(2) In each of the last years the amount of money she brought to university exceeded her 50,000 salary; (3) Professor Thomas likely leave for another university if the university does not implement this recommendation. However, the argument relies on a series of incredible evidences, which render it convincing as it stands.

First, the recommendation relies on the assumption that Professor Thomas’s effectiveness of teaching is based on the largeness of her classes. Yet this assumption ignores other possible reasons for the largeness of her classes. Perhaps her classes are compulsory ones and most of students have to choose these classes. Even though her classes are indeed welcomed, the committee rests on further assumption that it’s her popularity that contributes to her effectiveness of teaching. Yet, this assumption overlooks other possible reasons. Perhaps she is a comparatively lenient grader. Without considering and eliminating other possible explanations for the largeness even the popularity of Thomas’ classes, the committee can not convincingly conclude that Thomas is an effective teacher.
他因
Second, even assuming that the largeness of Thomas’ classes is definitely attributable to her effectiveness as a teacher, the committee assumes too hastily that the merely fact that the amount of grant money Thomas attracted to the university last two years exceeded her salary proves her teaching abilities or her researching abilities. A correlation between grant money and research abilities does not necessarily infer a casual relationship. As we know, rather than relating with grant money, research abilities are considered to adhere to research achievements or the number of excellent papers. A vast majority of grant money maybe mean that she keeps a tight relation with many companies. Furthermore, generally, we comment somebody about appearance on his work according to the comparison between him and others. For this matter, perhaps other professor attracted more grant money than Thomas relative to their salary level. In addition, the observation for only two years constitutes  

Third, even the committee can substantiate foregoing assumption that he is excellent at both teaching and researching, the report provides no evidence that Thomas would leave the university unless she is granted the proposed raise and promotion. It is possible that he is rather content with the current salary and position. Therefore, without evidence, the report can not justifiably support its recommendation.

In sum, the committee’s recommendation is ill-founded. To strengthen it the committee must provide more convincing and clearer evidence that Thomas is in fact an effective teachers and researchers. Furthermore, in order to better evaluate the argument I need more information about the degree to which Thomas is content in her current position and salary. (参照范文的)

改stone
In this report, the arguer recommends that Professor Thomasreceive a $10,000 raise and a promotion to Department Chairperson. He proposessome reasons and fears, however, they are not convincing.
开头比我精简多了，值得学习。
Tobegin with, the speaker wants to prove that Professor Thomas is well worth herannual salary of $50,000, whereas he conducts some fallacy in hisevidences. First, although Professor Thomas’s classes are among the largest atthe university, this cannot indicate that she is popular among student. It ispossible that she teaches general courses such as elementary calculus and inthese classes there are always many students. So, if this is true, the speakercannot conclude that she is popular just according to the population（应该是largeness吧） of her classes. Moreover, thefact, that her classes are largest one, doesn't imply that she fulfills manytasks in teaching. （这句值得商榷，argu里没有说她完成大量的任务，你不能自己凭空造，所以的论述都是基于argu的基础上，我觉得从大的班级作者只想说明他的受欢迎程度，但完成任务方面是否多只是你个人的猜测。）Maybe, shejust teaches one or two courses; and her contributions to teaching may belittle. Second, the money, the Professor Thomas has brought to the universityin the research grants, has exceeded her salary in each of the last two years,however, this cannot make sure that she will continue to brought more money infuture. Maybe, in the last two years, she contributed herself to a researchprogram of a big company, and the university received some research grants.However, the results don't satisfy the leaders of company. And in this year,the program is cancelled. So, without these details, the speaker cannotguarantee that she will bring more money to the university. Therefore, theconclusion that she is worth her annual salary is unpersuasive.
这段应该写短，或者分开写，不然整个文章看上去也不舒服，而且有些头重脚轻的感觉。
Furthermore,the arguer doesn't provide the contributions of other professors. We know thereare many excellent professors in a department. The speaker cannot just focus onone of them. It is entirely possible that there are 5 professors, who are moreexcellent than Professor Thomas. They teach more courses and bring more grants.So, without the information about other professor, the recommendations thatraise her salary and position are not convincing.
没有与他人的比较
Inaddition, there is not evidence to show that Professor Thomas will leave theuniversity for another one without the raise and promotion. Maybe, she issatisfied with her work and salary and doesn’t even consider applying forpromotion. If the fact is like that, the fears are completely unnecessary.
担心没有根据
Insum, the recommendation is unconvincing. To make it more persuasive, thespeaker need to provide more information about Professor Thomas’s abilities andcontributions, other professors’ information, and desires of Professor Thomas.
给出建议。

第一次改argu，没有什么概念。觉得你错误都找出来了。整体没有什么毛病。
但我在想argu是不是需要把所有的错误都找出来，还是找到一两处错误，用合适的层次和结构表现出来，后者更能得到高分？如果是，那么是不是更需要关注错误的组织上。另外，那错误找的少是不是会影响给分呢？这个我一直不很明白。

我也加个附件，里面显示颜色，清楚些。

imlifewillingUID: 2706999

by懒蚂蚁
In this report, the Committee on Faculty Promotions and Salaries at Elm City University recommends that the university should increase the salary of Professor Thomas and promote her to Department Chairperson because of her teaching and research abilities, and also in order to avoid her leave. However, the evidence provided by the report in support for the recommendation have little credible support for it.

In the first place, the report assumes that her popularity among students can be demonstrated by that her class is the largest class at the university. However, it fails to take other facts which can result in a largest class into account. Perhaps, the course she teaches is an compulsory course so that every students have to take it, which makes this course the largest one. Perhaps students choose this course is not because of her teaching abilities but because of the grader she gives. In a word, without considering and eliminating those possible influences on the popularity of her class, it is not convictive for the committee to conclude that Professor Thomas is effective in her teaching.

In the second place, the committee alleges that Professor Thomas is good at her researches based on the fact that the money she has brought to the university in research grants has exceeded her salary in each of the last two years. Nevertheless,  the committee fails to consider other elements that can also result in this fact. Maybe the last two years was an aberration since the situations of the other fifteen years do not be reported. Even if she brought those money to the university by herself, there may be other professors who can bring more money to the university relative to their salaries, and from this points, we can conclude that she is not as effective as others in researches. What's more, the relationship between the money and the ability of research is also ambiguous, no evidence or researches have proved that the one who can get more money have stronger abilities in researches. In short, only through this single fact the committee can not make us believe that Professor Thomas has strong abilities in researches and can bring more money to our university or promote our university's research level in the future.

In the third place, even if Professor Thomas is effective in teaching and researches, there is also no evidences that support the necessity of
increasing salary and promotion. Perhaps her salary and position is already high enough according to her accomplishments in the university. Perhaps she  has no abilities in administration while she has the good abilities in teaching and researches or taking parts in administration would take her more time and ultimately bring adverse effects to her teaching and researches.
What's more, there are no evidence that can prove that Professor Thomas wants to leave our university or some other universities are going to employ her. It is possible that she is so familiar with our university since she has been in this place for seventeen years that she does not want to accept a new work from other universities. In addition, perhaps other universities have no ability to support her teaching and research so that they would not deliver an offer to her.

In conclusion, it is impossible to make sure that Professor Thomas has the excellent abilities in teaching and researches only through the report without considering and eliminating other possible elements. So it is necessary for us to make a thorough consideration about this issue and then decide whether we should accept this advice or not.

修改 SXH

by SHX
In this report, a committee of Elm City University recommends increasing Professor Thomas’s salary and promoting her to Department Chairperson based on her effectiveness of working and teaching. In order to support this recommendation, the report points out following facts(1) her classes are among the largest in the university（这句话有毛病） ;(2) In each of the last years the amount of money she brought to university exceeded her 50,000 salary; (3) Professor Thomas likely leave（？？？） for another university if the university does not implement this recommendation. However, the argument relies on a series of incredible evidences, which render it convincing as it stands.
开头列出了三个点，这确实和北美比较像。
First, the recommendation relies on the assumption that Professor Thomas’s effectiveness of teaching is based on the largeness of her classes. Yet this assumption ignores other possible reasons for the largeness of her classes. Perhaps her classes are compulsory ones and most of students have to choose these classes. Even though her classes are indeed welcomed, the committee rests on further assumption that it’s her popularity that contributes to her effectiveness of teaching（这点很好）. Yet, this assumption overlooks other possible reasons. Perhaps she is a comparatively lenient grader. Without considering and eliminating other possible explanations for the largeness even the popularity of Thomas’ classes, the committee can not convincingly conclude that Thomas is an effective teacher.
他因 首先说明通过她的课程说明她善于教学是不合理的。
Second, even assuming that the largeness of Thomas’ classes is definitely attributable to her effectiveness as a teacher, the committee assumes too hastily that the merely fact that the amount of grant money Thomas attracted to the university last two years exceeded her salary proves her teaching abilities or her researching abilities. A correlation between grant money and research abilities does not necessarily infer a casual relationship. As we know, rather than relating with grant money, research abilities are considered to adhere to research achievements or the number of excellent papers. A vast majority of grant money maybe mean that she keeps a tight relation with many companies. Furthermore, generally, we comment somebody about appearance on his work according to the comparison between him and others. For this matter, perhaps other professor attracted more grant money than Thomas relative to their salary level. In addition, the observation for only two years constitutes  
这个攻击点写的很好，我要学习。
Third, even the committee can substantiate foregoing assumption that he is excellent at both teaching and researching, the report provides no evidence that Thomas would leave the university unless she is granted the proposed raise and promotion. It is possible that he is rather content with the current salary and position. Therefore, without evidence, the report can not justifiably support its recommendation.
这点写很可能很满意，不会跳槽
In sum, the committee’s recommendation is ill-founded. To strengthen it the committee must provide more convincing and clearer evidence that Thomas is in fact an effective teachers and researchers. Furthermore, in order to better evaluate the argument I need more information about the degree to which Thomas is content in her current position and salary. (参照范文的)
我对阿狗没什么太大的研究，感觉你找出了攻击点，能说服我了。

上传了附件，里面的彩色可以看的清楚点

yeshen2010UID: 2744103

A140

In this argument, the author concludes that Elm City University should raise Professor Thomas’s salary, or the committee fear that she will leave this University for another college. At first glance, the author’s reasoning seems to be appealing, but with a clear examination of the author’s reasoning, we may find that it is unconvincing. The argument contains several facets that are questionable.


First of all, Professor Thomas’ classes are among the largest at the university does not mean she is popular with students. There exist other factors which attract students to her classes. One factor is perhaps taking her classes can get higher scores, and students can pass the subjects much more easily. The other factor may be her classes are obligatory courses, students who learn botany should all take her courses．


Secondly, the view that Professor Thomas’ research ability has been proved under the assumption that the more money one Professor gets, the higher research ability one has. The method to judge a professor’s research ability mainly depends on the number of excellent papers one publishes. Money cannot measure the research ability. Maybe the money Professor Thomas has brought to the university comes from a company which has a certain relationship with her.


Thirdly, even if money can measure the research ability, two years is not an enough long time to prove Professor Thomas’ research ability. Although the money she has brought to the university in research grants has exceeded her salary in last two years, perhaps she never brought any money to the university before these two years. The university should spend much longer time to exam her research ability.


Fourthly, there is no sufficient information to show that Professor Thomas will leave Elm City University for another college without salary raise and a promotion. Maybe her family members are all in Elm City, and she will stay in the university forever regardless of raising salary and promoting.


In conclusion, the author fails to substantiate his claim clearly. Because the evidence cited in the analysis is too weak to lend strong support to what the arguer suggests. To strengthen the argument, the arguer should convince us with more specific information.



改A140 by懒蚂蚁

In this report, the Committee on Faculty Promotions and Salaries at Elm City University recommends that the university should increase the salary of Professor Thomas and promote her to Department Chairperson because of her teaching and research abilities, and also(建议删除，显得更简洁) in order to avoid her leave（leaving）. However, the evidence provided by the report in support（supporting） for the recommendation have（has） little credible support for it.

In the first place, the report assumes that her popularity among students can be demonstrated by that her class is the largest class（one） at the university. However, it fails to take other facts into consideration（添加进去） which can result in a largest class into account. Perhaps, the course she teaches is an(a) compulsory course so that every students(student) have（has） to take it（去掉）, which makes this course the largest one. Perhaps students choose this course is(去掉，否则谓语多了) not because of her teaching abilities but because of the grader(grades) she gives. In a word, without considering and eliminating those possible influences on the popularity of her class, it is not convictive（这个单词啥意思啊？google上没查到） for the committee to conclude that Professor Thomas is effective in her teaching.
攻击：Thomas教授很受欢迎建立在她的学生人数最多的错误假设上。

In the second place, the committee alleges that Professor Thomas is good at her researches based（basing，定语从句，这里没有被动的意思） on the fact that the money she has brought to the university in research grants has exceeded her salary in each of the last two years. Nevertheless（前后好像不是因此的关系，而是转折关系，建议用However）,  the committee fails to consider other elements that can also result in this fact. Maybe the last two years was an aberration since the situations of the other fifteen years do not be reported（这句话意思没看懂）. Even if she brought those money to the university by herself, there may be other professors who can bring more money to the university relative to their salaries, and from this points, we can conclude that she is not as effective as others in researches. What's more, the relationship between the money and the ability of research is also ambiguous, no evidence or researches have proved that the one who can get more money have（has） stronger abilities in researches. In short, only through this single fact the committee cannot（连起来） make us believe that Professor Thomas has strong abilities in researches and can bring more money to our university or promote our university's research level in the future.
攻击：委员会评定教授研究做得好建立在错误的假定上。这一段攻击得很充分，学习了。

In the third place, even if Professor Thomas is effective in teaching and researches, there is also no evidences that(建议改为to) support the necessity of increasing salary and promotion. Perhaps her salary and position is already high enough according to her accomplishments in the university. Perhaps she  has no abilities in administration
while she has the good abilities in teaching and researches, or taking parts in administration would take her more time and ultimately bring adverse effects to her teaching and researches（这里又是一个句子，有主谓宾，建议前面加上逗号）. What's more, there are（is） no evidence that can（建议改为to,前后相隔不远就两个that看着有点烦） prove that Professor Thomas wants to leave our university or some other universities are going to employ her. It is possible that she is so familiar with our university since she has been in this place for seventeen years that she does not want to accept a new work from other universities. In addition, perhaps other universities have no ability to support her teaching and research so that they would not deliver an offer to her.
攻击：即使教授研究、教学水平高，也没有证据表明有必要加工资、升职，也没有证据表明她会离开这个大学另谋高就。

In conclusion, it is impossible to make sure that Professor Thomas has the excellent abilities in teaching and researches only through the report without considering and eliminating other possible elements. So it is necessary for us to make a thorough consideration about this issue and then decide whether we should accept this advice or not.

小结：小毛病较多，建议在word里面自己先改一下。反驳还是很充分的，层次也很清晰。

鱼晒月亮UID: 2723622

临暄的
The committee on faculty promotions and salaries at Elm City University recommends that annual salary raise and promotion to Department Chairperson will prevent Professor Thomas from leaving the University for another College based on her teaching and research abilities. The committee commits a false analogy and its recommendation is misleading.

Firstly, we have good reasons to doubt that Professor Thomas’ classes would demonstrate her popularity among students. What are possible is that many students major in botany and they are forced to learn it, thus no matter how Professor Thomas’ classes is boring or vivid, they all must attend the classes.

Secondly, the committee just points out in above paragraph that Professor Thomas has ability to bring research grants to the university and this does not present Professor Thomas’ research ability. As we know, getting research grants shows only part of research ability. Probably, Professor Thomas has little research ability about how to develop his projects, how to organize people or students to do his projects or he is responsible for bringing research grants to the university instead of doing it really. So even if the money Professor Thomas has brought to the university in research grants has exceeded her salary in each of the last two years, which is not meant that she will ensure the university’s frontier position in botany. Moreover, Professor Thomas is just in each of the last year that brought the money to the university in research grants exceeded her salary. Then, in the years prior to the last two years, did Professor Thomas bring the money to the university in research grants? Or in future, will Professor Thomas bring the money to the university in research grants? All of which are ignored by the committee, unless the committee could provide more information about this factor, we will not accept the recommendation based on the research ability.

Additionally, in above paragraph the committee points out that Professor Thomas has worked at the university for seventeen years. This demonstrates one possibility that Professor Thomas will not leave the University for other College in future because of job satisfaction rather than salary raise and promotion. So vice versa, even if getting salary raise and promotion to department chairperson, Professor Thomas will leave the university because of lack job satisfaction or other reasons.

As a result, we can not accept the recommendation fully although the committee provides evidence that seems sound. The committee should provide more evidence above mentioned to support his recommendation. In order to adopt this recommendation, the university should consider all factors inclusive comprehensively and make up mind to apply it.