argument140【clover】 by a08805436

a08805436UID: 2725634

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: 415
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2010/2/7 15:18:00




In this argument, the author recommends a raise and a promotion for Professor Tomas and points out further that without the raise and promotion, Professor Tomas may leave Elm City University. To support the argument, the author provides the evidences that the classes of Professor Tomas are among the largest at the university and she has brought a lot of money in research grants for the last two years. Close scrutiny at each of these evidences, however, reveals that none of them lend credible support to the recommendation.

In the first place, the recommendation rests on the assumption that the popularity of Professor Tomas's classes is due to the fact that she is an effective teacher in the university. Yet this assumption overlooks other possible reasons for the popularity. Perhaps her classes are the basic classes for every student to learn, or she gives higher grades than other professors. Without ruling these and other possible reasons, the committee cannot convincingly conclude that based on the popularity of her classes they should offer her a raise and a promotion.

Furthermore, the mere fact that she brought in a lot of money to university in the last two years proves nothing about either her teaching ability or research capacity. Maybe last year was an aberration, and on average she did not bring that much of money. Moreover， it is entirely possible that other professors in the same school have brought in more money than she had, or that the performance in the last two years is a result of the economic increase.

Finally, even assumes that Professor Tomas has shown her effectiveness in both teaching abilities and research capability, the argument concludes further that without the raise and the promotion, she would probably leave Elm City University for another college. Yet this argument provides no evidence to substantiate it. Lacking such evidence, it is entirely possible that Professor Tomas is quite content with the current salary and position and she would more likely to stay in Elm City University for the rest of her life. Without ruling out these and other possible scenarios, the author cannot convince me that she would leave the university.

To sum up, this argument is logically flawed in several respects that render it unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster the recommendation, we need to know the real teaching and research abilities of Professor Tomas. We would also need to know whether she is content with the salary and position and the performance of other faculties in the same university.