【clover】Argument 140 by Misir(第五次作业)

misirUID: 2684938

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: 520
TIME: 00:50:00
DATE: 2010-2-15 22:54:37

As the argument points out, they should raise Professor Thomas's salary and give her promotion to Department Chairperson. I cannot agree with the recommend for several reasons as I will discuss below.

Firstly, the author makes a false conclusion that she is popular in the students from that Professor Thomas's classes are among the largest at the university. It is likely that Professor Thomas' class is the general or necessary one that most students must register it. Therefore, the classes must be very large, even among the largest at the university. It also can not present her popularity or teaching abilities.

Secondly, the money she brought to the university in the research grants doesn't equal to her research abilities. Since she belongs to a department, for example, the department of life sciences, maybe it is the other faculty who did a marvelous research that brought the department a high ***. And that is the key point. With the well-known***, Professor Thomas can easily bring money to the department. However, how much money is not primary, whether it exceeded or not her salary is just normal phenomenon. Two years is not long enough for the author to predict the further. These two year's trends can not decide the next year, let alone the year after. The development of the field of botany, the university's policy of research, the achievement of the department of life sciences, and even the economy of the society play important roles in how much research grants she can bring to the university.

Thirdly, to raise her salary and give her a promotion to Department Chairperson bases on an unconvincing evidence. The author didn't provide the other faculty's salary data, so if the salary Professor Thomas received is the highest among the entire faculty, there is no need to raise her salary. If she really devoted herself to researching, which can give her pleasure and satisfy her curiosity, she may not so care about her salary. As to the promotion, the author made this conclusion based on the fact that Professor Thomas has teaching and research abilities. How should we know her political ability? If she can only do well in the academia and have no idea of how to make political decisions or how to deal with the trible things which have nothing to do with botany. Without more information about Professor Thomas, the author can not persuade me to this point.

Finally, there's no evidence to show that without such a raise and promotion, Professor Thomas will leave here for another college. As I have mentioned above, if she did a well job and contributed to what she did, she may not leave here for just a higher salary and a position in Department Chairperson. What the university should do is not raising her salary or giving her a promotion, but to update the facilities in the university, make a better environment and create a academia atmosphere.

In sum, the conclusion made by the author can not convince me. To make a better and wise conclusion, the author must provide other evidence and more information.

taotaoleUID: 2694983

As the argument points out, they should raise Professor Thomas's salary and give her promotion to Department Chairperson. I cannot agree with the recommend for several reasons as I will discuss below. 开头的太过简单了，而且不建议使用含有“我”的语言，因为在academic writing里，这样的表达太过主观性。

Firstly, the author makes a false conclusion that she is popular in the students from that（建议用since, for等表原因的连接词） Professor Thomas's classes are among the largest at the university. It is likely that Professor Thomas' class is the general or necessary one that most students must register it. Therefore, the classes must be very large, even among the largest at the university. It also can not present her popularity or teaching abilities.

Secondly, the money she brought to the university in the research grants doesn't equal to her research abilities. Since she belongs to a department, for example, the department of life sciences, maybe it is the other faculty who did a marvelous research that brought the department a high ***.（用星号省略也不建议出现在正规写作中。） And that is the key point. With the well-known***, Professor Thomas can easily bring money to the department. However, how much money is not primary, whether it exceeded or not her salary is just normal phenomenon. Two years is not long enough for the author to predict the further（更进一步的预测？还是future?）. These two year's trends cannot decide the next year, let alone the year after. The development of the field of botany, the university's policy of research, the achievement of the department of life sciences, and even the economy of the society play important roles in how much research grants she can bring to the university.
以上两段就给出的论据否定掉最后决策对教授教学与科研能力的判断。论证较合理充分。但表达语言上还需更academic.

Thirdly, to raise her salary and give her a promotion to Department Chairperson bases on an unconvincing evidence. The author didn't provide the other faculty's salary data, so if the salary Professor Thomas received is the highest among the entire faculty, there is no need to raise her salary. （这个推断不合理/至少会有争议，且多余）If she really devoted herself to researching, which can give her pleasure and satisfy her curiosity, she may not so care about her salary. As to the promotion, the author made this conclusion based on the fact that Professor Thomas has teaching and research abilities. How should we know her political ability? If she can only do well in the academia and have no idea of how to make political decisions or how to deal with the trible（应该是trifle吧~） things which have nothing to do with botany. Without more information about Professor Thomas, the author cannot persuade me to this point.
论证了决策的谬误。基本没大问题，主要是第一小点的反例。

Finally, there's no evidence to show that without such a raise and promotion, Professor Thomas will leave here for another college. As I have mentioned above, if she did a well job and contributed to what she did, she may not leave here for just a higher salary and a position in Department Chairperson. [What the university should do is not raising her salary or giving her a promotion, but to update the facilities in the university, make a better environment and create an academia atmosphere.]这也只是你的推断而已……可以用来举反例，否定决策。

这段说的是决策的必要性。感觉还能再深入些。

In sum, the conclusion made by the author cannot convince me. To make a better and wise conclusion, the author must provide other evidence and more information.结尾简洁明了。还是建议对上文有些收束总结。
建议：还是加强举反例的能力，同时注意文章中避免太多“我”的出现。看AW intro会知道，A考察的不是你的看法，而是你的分析能力，通过你的分析展示出材料中错误逻辑的过程是能够使所有阅读者信服的，而不仅仅是你一人。