【1010G精英组】ARGUMENT169 F组回收站

lynnuanaUID: 2772328

* 5月13日，13点之前上交ARGUMENT169，作文直接跟帖，修改直接跟帖，不用另开新帖~
* 要求每篇argument附上逻辑链
* 欢迎在本贴内讨论+BS本期题目~

总贴地址    F组素材积累库地址

169The 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."

makeithappenUID: 2585223

The studies are questionable.
The spouses would choose to stay with their parents and the specific details of the university
This way is the most beneficial method or not?

The conclusion that if Pierce University offer employment to the spouse of each new faculty member, that will attract the most gifted teachers and researchers to Pierce University's faculty and improving the morale of entire staff sounds reasonable. After all, it is the intend of this policy, offering employment to the spouse, to attract most gifted teachers and researchers. However, not only the evidences in the argument are not sufficient to guarantee the expected consequence of this policy, but also the conclusion of this policy mask other method, that more beneficial in attracting the most gifted teachers and researchers under a equal cost.

First of all, the studies' results, that professors are happier living in small towns when their spouses are also employed in the same geographic area, are questionable. The Bronston College may just conduct a survey in the small town, or even only study few professor. Without a clearer approach to the studies' details, the studies' results become unreliable. Lacking the definition of "same geographic area" also makes the result obscure. If the same geographic area means only fem miles away, the policy may useful in some extent. But if the same geographic area means the whole country, the policy works unworthy. It is unwise to launch a policy just for a obscure studies' results.

Secondly, although we presume that studies results are correct, there are some issues still needs to discuss before the implement of the policy. In the results, professors are happier living in small towns. And whether Pierce University locate in a small town, which is hard to change in a short time, would become a key factor when the most gifted teachers and researchers decide whether to join in the school. Also, whether the spouses have an intensely trend to work away university under the influence of their parents, and whether the spouses accept to employed in the same geographic area with their parents, which makes the spouse lives more connections with their professor parents, still need to consider.

At last, the argument is weakened by the fact that it does not compare the policy offering employment to the spouse with another method, which apparently can attract professors. Offering employment to the spouse of new faculty member just one method to attract high gifted professors, other way still exists. For example, Pierce University greatly raises the salaries of the gifted or diligent teachers and researchers. Or Pierce University can develop the academic environment by inducing new high-technology equipments for the research. These usual methods attracting high quality employee may be more effectual for the situation of Pierce University. Without a clear comparison, under the framework of benefit and cost, it is hard to figure out which method is more beneficial.

In a nutshell, the argument gets the conclusion without comprehend and robust evidences. Questionable studies, lacking the consideration about specific situation of Pierce University and the response of spouses, and deficiency in comparisons with other methods make the conclusion rickety. Act a fallacious policy, which seems to be useful, may be just wasting the treasure of Pierce University.

悦微微志燮UID: 2759026

The notion that if the Pierce University offer employment to the spouse of each new faculty member, the most gifted teachers and researchers professors will be more likely to take part in the school , according to a study of Bronston College seems at first glance to be an obvious conclusion. However, in my opinion, the argument is well-presented, but not thoroughly well-resoned.




First of all, the study can’t provide sufficient evidences to support it’s conclusion. It fails to show us that the study is based on a general investigate or just a part of people who prefer to live in small town responded to the study. Besides, the study lack some details to describe whether living together will bring professors happiness. Even if the study is convincing, it still can’t apply the results of B to P simply because the different circumstance of the two towns should be take in to consideration. And may be the town of P is a palace where the weather and living conditions are too bad to people live there and to enjoy themselves.
So the study should be completed and provides more information to support the conclusion.

The argument above is weakened by the fact that it does not take into account other alternatives reasons of the most gifted teachers and researchers chose which school as their ultimate objective.Only through offer employment to the spouse of professors will it attract the most gifted teachers? How kinds of occupations could the university offer? If just common jobs, is it have great attractive to the professors’ spouse? Are the most gifted teachers interest in the suggestion? May be the most gifted teachers and researchers think other factors are more important for them to make a decision such as the rank of the school and the basic research conditions ,or the school’s policies and the school’s academic and cultural atmospher or even the geographical conditions and living circumstances which also play crucial factors for their chose. Besides, the morale of the school is not just only rely on the quality of its professors but also influnced by the school’s attitude towards its staff such as its reformation of salary system and the humanity attention to its staff or its international reputation. In short, Offering employment is not the best effective method to attract gifted teachers, other alternative factors also should be emphasized

Finally, the cost of the program also should be evaluated, offering employment to the spouse of each new faculty member they hire must be a significant project which need a great deal of investment and it is necessary for the school to balance the project and other aspects such as the improvement of its teaching standers.

In sum up, the argument that the Pierce University offer employment to the spouse of faculty member, the most gifted teachers and researchers professors will be more likely to take part in the school based on the study of B is unconvincing. Before conclusion are reached ,however, a more complete study and other alternatives factors are needed to be taken into account.

lynnuanaUID: 2772328

2# makeithappen
先改下吧，我的word打不开了~~ :L

The studies are questionable.The spouses would choose to stay with their parents and the specific details of the university. This way is the most beneficial method or not?

The conclusion that if Pierce University offer employment to the spouse of each new faculty member, that（指代的是？） will attract the most gifted teachers and researchers to Pierce University's faculty and improving the morale of entire staff sounds reasonable. After all, it is the intend of this policy, offering employment to the spouse, to attract most gifted teachers and researchers.However, not only the evidences in the argument are not sufficient to guarantee the expected consequence of this policy, but also the conclusion of this policy mask other methods, that is/are more beneficial in attracting the most gifted teachers and researchers under a equal cost.

First of all, the studies' results, that professors are happier living in small towns when their spouses are also employed in the same geographic area,（可以不用插入语，前后逗号可省略，太多插入语感觉读起来有些不流畅也不好理解，这句可以主句提前同位语放后面：the result is questionable that professors are happier living in small towns when their spouses are also employed in the same geographic area） are questionable. The Bronston College may just conduct a survey in the small town, or even only study on few professors. Without a clearer approach to the studies' details, the studies' results become unreliable. Moreover，Lacking the definition of "same geographic area"（这个可以讨论下，我感觉same geographic area在文中对应的就是 in small towns，就是BC所在的小城市） also makes the result obscure. If the same geographic area means only fem miles away, the policy may be useful in some extent. But if the same geographic area means the whole country, the policy works unworthy. Therefore，It is unwise to launch a policy just for a obscure studies' results.

Secondly, although（让步，Even if？） we presume that studies results are correct, there are（可删除） some issues still needs to discuss（be discussed） before the implement of the policy. In the results, professors are happier living in small towns. （不知道这句话在上下句中的作用~~~）And whether Pierce University locate in a small town，which is hard to change in a short time, would become a key factor when the most gifted teachers and researchers decide whether to join in the school.（外部影响） Also, whether the spouses have an intensely trend to work away university under the influence of their parents, and whether the spouses accept to employed in the same geographic area with their parents, which makes the spouse lives more connections with their professor parents, still need to consider（be considered）（内部影响）. -----------最好做个结尾句。

At last, the argument is weakened by the fact that it does not compare the policy offering employment to the spouse with another method, which（指代的是？） apparently can attract professors. Offering employment to the spouse of new faculty member just one method to attract high gifted professors, other way（other+复数名词，another+单数名词） still exists. For example, Pierce University greatly raises the salaries of the gifted or diligent teachers and researchers. Or（前面最好用分号或逗号隔开，感觉是example的并列成分） Pierce University can develop the academic environment by inducing new high-technology equipments for（into） the research. These usual methods attracting high quality employee may be more effectual for the situation of Pierce University. Without a clear comparison, under the framework of benefit and cost, it is hard to figure out which method is more beneficial.（感觉结尾最好点题，题目并没有比较“methods”而是仅仅使用一种“method”）

In a nutshell, the argument gets the conclusion without comprehend and robust evidences. Questionable studies, lacking the consideration about specific situation of Pierce University and the response of spouses, and deficiency in comparisons with other methods make the conclusion rickety. Act a fallacious policy, which seems to be useful, may be just wasting the treasure（财富？这个词有点wired） of Pierce University.

lynnuanaUID: 2772328

3# 悦微微志燮

The notion that if the Pierce University offer employment to the spouse of each new faculty member, the most gifted teachers and researchers professors will be more likely to take part in the school , according to a study of Bronston College seems at first glance to be an obvious conclusion. However, in my opinion, the argument is well-presented, but not thoroughly well-resoned.

First of all, the study can’t provide sufficient evidences to support it’s conclusion. It fails to show us that the study is based on a general investigate or just a part of people who prefer to live in small town responded to the study. Besides, the study lack some details to describe whether living together will bring professors happiness. Even if the study is convincing, it still can’t apply the results of B to P simply because the different circumstance of the two towns should be take in to consideration. And may be the town of P is a palace（place）
where the weather and living conditions are too bad to（for） people live there and to enjoy themselves. So the study should be completed and provides more information to support the conclusion.

Moreover，The argument above is weakened by the fact that it does not take into account other alternatives reasons（删~） of the most gifted teachers and researchers chose which school as their ultimate objective.Only through offer employment to the spouse of professors will it（who？） attract the most gifted teachers? How（what） kinds of occupations could the university offer? If just common jobs, is it have great attractive to the professors’ spouse?（此句语法有问题~） Are the most gifted teachers interest in the suggestion?（反问！） May be the most gifted teachers and researchers think other factors which are more important for them to make a decision such as the rank of the school and the basic research conditions ,or the school’s policies and the school’s academic and cultural atmospher or even the geographical conditions and living circumstances which also play crucial factors for their chose.（赞！） Besides, the morale of the school is not just only relying on the quality of its professors but also influnced by the school’s attitude towards its staff such as its reformation of salary system and the humanity attention to its staff or its international reputation. In short, Offering employment is not the best（most） effective method to attract gifted teachers, other alternative factors also should be emphasized

Finally, the cost of the program also should be evaluated,（. or ;） offering employment to the spouse of each new faculty member they hire must be a significant project which need a great deal of investment and it is necessary for the school to balance the project and other aspects such as the improvement of its teaching standers.

In sum up, the argument that the Pierce University offer employment to the spouse of faculty member, the most gifted teachers and researchers professors will be more likely to take part in the school based on the study of B is unconvincing. Before conclusion are reached ,however, a more complete study and other alternatives factors are needed to be taken into account.

lynnuanaUID: 2772328

BC study –> 男女教授喜欢住在小城市，如果their spouses也在小城市有工作-->为吸引the most gifted teachers and researchers 和 鼓舞员工士气， PU也应该提供新员工spouse学校工作（即使付出很大的金钱代价）

The argument presented claims that the measure to employ the spouses of the new faculties would attract the most gifted teachers and researchers to work at Pierce University (PU) which is located in a small town, on the basis of the studies conducted by Bronston College(BC) which reports professors would be much happier if their spouses were hired in the same geographic area which is small. Besides, the arguer also points that the cost of this measure is worthwhile, for the invited professors would be more likely to accept the job offers. Although this suggestion may be a good attempt, yet the argument is based on a false analogy and the supporting statements need to be carefully examined.

To begin with, the arguer assumes if a school was located in a small town, the faculties would probably be unwilling to work there. Therefore, he cites the studies in BC---which is in a small town---and hope to learn its experience. Unfortunately, several weak spots make this analogy untenable as it stands; in another word, it is an incomplete and selective comparison. Primarily, the geographical reason--- small towns---is insufficient to support that the two cities are entirely in the same situation and therefore the experience of BC could be well applied in PU as well. Not only could the size and shape not be exactly same, but also could the resident composition not be. Moreover, no evidence is provided to prove the jobs that offer to the spouses of the faculties in BC is the only reason that the male and female professors are happier living there. Maybe the working positions are not so attracted; and even without these job chances, the spouses still prefer to live with their wives or husbands: perhaps some of them may have strong family value; or the town in which BC located have a good environment, for example, the town is flanked with sea or has moderate climate and distinctive four seasons; or BC itself has had an excellent reputation in academic circles. These possibilities need to be pointed out by the arguer; otherwise, it is hard to learn from BC and convince the president that offering job opportunities for the spouses could attract more gifted faculties.

Second, it is presumptuous to assert the most gifted teachers and researchers would definitely accept the job offers, even if their spouses would like to be employed in PU. On the one hand, the academic genius may have not get marriage yet; on the other hand, the gifted scholars would concern more about the academic environment, the teaching equipments, the students quality of an university, rather than whether their spouses are hired by the school or not. Consequently, hiring the spouses could not be the only way to attract potential faculties to PU and the efficiency of this measure would be still open into doubt.

Last, no one would agree that university fund should be used to offer the spouses with jobs; even this investment would probably achieve nothing. From my point of view, the foundation should be offered to reward the most gifted students, to develop the school facilities and to assist their academic researches of the current faculties. These efforts, I believe, could actually improve the morale of the entire staff.

To sum up, even though the measure that offer jobs to the spouses of faculties is possibly proved effective in BC ,there is no guarantee that it will just work as well in PU. Therefore, I suggest the president think comprehensively over the chairperson’s advice and finally find a right plan to introduce talented teachers and researchers.

悦微微志燮UID: 2759026

6# lynnuana

The argument presented claims that the measure to employ the spouses of the new faculties would attract the most gifted teachers and researchers to work at Pierce University (PU) which is located in a small town, on the basis of the studies conducted by Bronston College(BC) which reports professors would be much happier if their spouses were hired in the same geographic area which is small. Besides, the arguer also points that the cost of this measure is worthwhile, for the invited professors would be more likely to accept the job offers. Although this suggestion may be a good attempt, yet the argument is based on a false analogy and the supporting statements need to be carefully examined.

To begin with, the arguer assumes if a school was located in a small town, the faculties would probably be unwilling to work there. Therefore, he cites the studies in BC---which is in a small town---and hope to learn its experience. Unfortunately, several weak spots make this analogy untenable(GRE词汇，好） as it stands; in another word, it is an incomplete and selective comparison. Primarily, the geographical reason--- small towns---is insufficient to support that the two cities are entirely in the same situation and therefore the experience of BC could be well applied in PU as well. Not only could the size and shape not be exactly same, but also could the resident composition not be. Moreover, no evidence is provided to prove the jobs that offer to the spouses of the faculties in BC is the only reason that the male and female professors are happier living there. Maybe the working positions are not so attracted; and even without these job chances, the spouses still prefer to live with their wives or husbands: perhaps some of them may have strong family value; or the town in which BC located have a good environment, for example, the town is flanked with sea or has moderate climate and distinctive four seasons; or BC itself has had an excellent reputation in academic circles. These possibilities need to be pointed out by the arguer; otherwise, it is hard to learn from BC and convince the president that offering job opportunities for the spouses could attract more gifted faculties.

Second, it is presumptuous to assert the most gifted teachers and researchers would definitely accept the job offers, even if their spouses would like to be employed in PU. On the one hand, the academic genius may have not get marriage yet; on the other hand, the gifted scholars would concern more about the academic environment, the teaching equipments, the students quality of an university, rather than whether their spouses are hired by the school or not. Consequently, hiring the spouses could not be the only way to attract potential faculties to PU and the efficiency of this measure would be still open into doubt.

Last, no one would agree that university fund should be used to offer the spouses with jobs; even this investment would probably achieve nothing. From my point of view, the foundation should be offered to reward the most gifted students, to develop the school facilities and to assist their academic researches of the current faculties. These efforts, I believe, could actually improve the morale of the entire staff. （这个论点挺好的，多发点奖学金哈哈）

To sum up, even though the measure that offer jobs to the spouses of faculties is possibly proved effective in BC ,there is no guarantee that it will just work as well in PU. Therefore, I suggest the president think comprehensively over the chairperson’s advice and finally find a right plan to introduce talented teachers and researchers.

xmaszztUID: 2796708

In this argument, the author asserts that the measure offer employments to the spouse of each new faculty member would attract the most gifted teachers and researchers to work at Pierce University which is located in a small town. To support his conclusion, the author shows some studies conducted by Bronston College which reveal that professors are happier lining in small towns if when their spouses are also employed in the same geographic area. It is somehow reasonable at first glance but the author still fails to constructs his standpoint by erroneous evidence.

First of all, the studies conducted by Bronston College are not necessarily applied to the Pierce University. The author overlooks the possibility of the existence of the special at Pierce University. Perhaps the environment is abominable this area where Pierce University located; or perhaps this University is the worst in the world. In these cases, the studies conducted by Bronston College lose its value. So without accounting the situation of Pierce University, the author can not convinces me to accept his conclusion.

Second, the author unfairly indicates a causal relation between offer employment to the spouse of faculty and the faculty willing to live in small town. There could be many other factors, such as the environment is more convenient in small town, the survival of low pressure in small town, and the slow pace of life. Without ruling out such possibilities, the author can not assert the willingness of live in small towns is cause by the employment which is offered to the spouse of faculty.

Third, the studies in Bronston College focus on all professors, but the author suggests offer employment to the spouse of each new faculty member they hire. Perhaps some of the new faculties are not married, or perhaps the new faculties pay more attention to the level of treatment. Lack of the study on new faculties, I can not accept the author’s point of offering employment to the spouse of new faculties.

Even assuming the new faculties would live in the small town when their spouse are working in the same area, the author can not assert these new professors will be likely to work in Pierce University. For instance, the new professors probably would service another university, which has a higher level of treatment. For that matter, living in the same area is not equivalent to be likely to work in Pierce University.

The last but not the least, the investment of offering employment to the spouse of new faculties will be an enormous project, and this project probably achieves nothing. From my point of view, this foundation should use to develop the school facilities, and to reward the most assiduous students. I think these efforts could actually improve the morale of entire staff.

To sum up, the author’s suggestion about we should offer employment to the spouse of each of new faculty member is not well supported as it stands. To bolster it, the author must provide more evidence such as some opinion from the new faculties themselves but not only a study conducted by another university.

lxin333UID: 2650844

额

shannonyUID: 2524183

Theargument presented above seems sound; however, the author fails to provide somecrucial evidence to support the argument. The author simply takes it forgranted that the situation in Pierce University will be exactly the same as inBronston College. Even if this strategy works, it does not mean that it willimprove the morale of the entire staff. Besides, without considering the extraexpense on offering employment to the spouse of each new faculty member.

Theargument rests on the assumption that Pierce University is analogous toBronston College in all respects. However, as mentioned in the argument theonly known similarity between these two universities is that they are bothlocated in a small town. In this case, even though the professors are happierwhen their spouses are also employed in the same geographic area in BronstonCollege, which is actually not equal to the morale of the entire staff, withoutproviding more analogous aspects between these two universities, the conclusionthat Pierce University should offer employment to the spouse of each newfaculty member is unwarranted. There are plenty of other reasons instead ofoffering to the spouse that makes the professors there happier. Suchalternatives may include the fact that the campus environment is much betterand comfortable in Bronston College, or that professors who have spouses areinto family life and there is nothing to do with that weather the spouses workin the same area or not.

Besides,even like Bronston College, the professors in Pierce University are happierwhen their spouses are also employed in the same geographic area, it does notmean that it actually works to do so for attracting the most gifted teachersand researchers and improving the morale of the entire staff. It is entirely possiblethat the most talented professors do not care where their spouses work whilethis policy just attracted some teachers who are not as good as the authorexpected for the reason the less gifted teachers tend to less requirements and ismore likely to be attracted by such factors which is less crucial.

Thelast but not least, even though this policy help attracting some professors, itis questionable that it merits all the costs in money and human resourcesthrough this method. It is quite likely that there are some more beneficialmethods instead of providing employment to the spouses such as improving thesalary for the professors and providing more advanced experiment equipmentswhich is more practical measures in my view.

Inconclusion, with the given information in the argument, the suggestion thatPierce University should offer employment to the spouse of each new facultymember hiring is not reliable. To strength it, the author should provide enoughcorrelation between the policy of offer employment to the spouse and attractingthe most gifted teachers and researchers.

shannonyUID: 2524183

2# makeithappen

The conclusion that if Pierce University offer employment to the spouse of each new faculty member, that will attract the most gifted teachers and researchers to Pierce University's faculty and improving the morale of entire staff sounds reasonable. After all, it is the intend [intent] of this policy, offering employment to the spouse, to attract most gifted teachers and researchers. However, not only the evidences [evidence不可数] in the argument are [is] not sufficient to guarantee the expected consequence of this policy, but also the conclusion of this policy mask other method[methods], that more beneficial in attracting the most gifted teachers and researchers under a[an] equal cost[这句话的语法似乎有问题].

First of all, the studies' results, that professors are happier living in small towns when their spouses are also employed in the same geographic area, are questionable. The Bronston College may just conduct a survey in the small town, or even only study few professor. Without a clearer approach to the studies' details, the studies' results become unreliable. Lacking the definition of "same geographic area" also makes the result obscure. If the same geographic area means only fem miles away, the policy may [be] useful in some extent. But if the same geographic area means the whole country, the policy works unworthy. It is unwise to launch a policy just for[这个for似乎不太恰当，改为based on比较好]
a[an]
obscure studies' results.

Secondly, although we presume that studies results are correct, there are some issues still needs[needed] to discuss before the implement of the policy. In the results, professors are happier living in small towns. And whether Pierce University locate[locates]
in a small town, which is hard to change in a short time, would become a key factor when the most gifted teachers and researchers decide whether to join in the school. Also, whether the spouses have an intensely trend to work away university under the influence of their parents[这句话不理解], and whether the spouses accept to employed in the same geographic area with their parents, which makes the spouse lives more connections with their professor parents, still need to consider[表述不清].


At last, the argument is weakened by the fact that it does not compare the policy offering employment to the spouse with another method, which apparently can attract professors. Offering employment to the spouse of new faculty member just one method to attract high gifted professors, other way still exists. For example, Pierce University greatly raises the salaries of the gifted or diligent teachers and researchers. Or Pierce University can develop the academic environment by inducing new high-technology equipments for the research. These usual methods attracting high quality employee may be more effectual for the situation of Pierce University. Without a clear comparison, under the framework of benefit and cost, it is hard to figure out which method is more beneficial. [关于其他可能措施的分析，比我的要深入具体得多，学习]

In a nutshell[我很少见到的词组，学习], the argument gets the conclusion without comprehend and robust evidences. Questionable studies, lacking the consideration about specific situation of Pierce University and the response of spouses, and deficiency in comparisons with other methods make the conclusion rickety. Act a fallacious policy[这里作主语应该用-ing形式], which seems to be useful, may be just wasting the treasure of Pierce University.