【1010G精英组】ARGUMENT169 B组回收站

weaselUID: 2739489

提交时间为5月13日13点前

weaselUID: 2739489

这两天有几门期末考，比较忙，限时写了一篇，匆匆忙忙，字数少，质量也很不理想，改的人辛苦了


In this argument, the author, a department chairman of Pierce University, attempted to found a seemly certain correlation between morale of their faculty devoting to work and whether these staff’s spouses get employment in the same university. When taken into consideration step by step, the argument goes with uncountable flaws.

Let’s start from the studies firstly and then we will realize that whether professors are happier living in small towns does not depend on if their spouses are also employed in the same geographic area. The quiet and comfortable natural surroundings in small towns may be their possible motivations. With the increasing different kinds of pollutions, such as industrial gas emission, more people are in favor of settling in small towns and villages. It is also possible that to offer a more growing circumstance for their boring kids, they chose small frugal towns instead of ostentatious cities. Besides, intensive employment pressure may be another factor. In order to escape from relatively low salaries and high consuming level, no one can deny living and working in small towns is perfection.

Next, the author stepped into mistakes to assert that hiring staff’s spouses at the same time can attract more gifted researchers and improve all faculty’s morale. First of all, even though teachers are followed with no spouses at the working place, we can not make such a conclusion that there is no doubt that they lack enthusiasm and energy when devoting to researching or teaching students. Such a circumstance can exist that to save more time to drive homes in cities and share more time with spouses, they perform better on working and focus more attention on enhance working efficiency. Secondly, even if because of the lack of spouses’ accompanying all faculty are absent-minded to finish their dairy work, there is no must to offer employment to the spouse of each new faculty member. It is entirely possible that most of the spouses have found a job in the same small towns and in contrast working in university is not their interest. Furthermore, the author also did not assure that the university can offer best salary say and welfare to make them give up their present jobs.

If the author wants to persuade the president to adopt his policy, he must present more enough evidence that can substantiate the new try can really work well and therefore attract gifted teachers and researchers. Otherwise, how can a president accept an unreasonable advice like this?

ROse_MaryUID: 2790464

The chairperson of the department wish Pierce University attract the most gifted teachers and researchers to their faculty and improve the morale of their entire staff in this letter. He raised a suggestion that Pierce University should offer employment to the spouse of each new faculty member they hire according to the studies conducted by Bronston College. As first glance, this may be an attractive solution, but careful weighing on the mind, we find that there are several critical flaws.

To begin with, the department chairperson had made a false inference that only if the professors feel that the university will let them happily work, the university will attract more gifted teachers and researchers to their faculty. No evidence shows that how the teachers and researchers select the school as a job is based whether they feel happy when they are working. There are some other factors that they will take into consideration, such as the research atmosphere, the health insurance, the reputation of the school etc. Even if Pierce University’s offering jobs in the local town to the spouse make every new faculty feel happier than other schools, it is entirely possible that the teachers give up the chance for the bad reputation of Pierce University in the field where he is doing research.

Moreover, the result of the studies conducted by Bronston College is not necessarily fit Pierce University. The similarity between the two schools given in the letter is only that they are both located in a small town, while the other information about a school like the reputation, the living condition, etc are not offered the reader. Under such condition, it made no sense to do any analogies between these two schools. So even if the study conducted by Bronston College is right and the professors really feel happier when their spouses working in the same area, there has been a possibility that the other conditions in Pierce University, like the research atmosphere, are not like Bronston College that will lead them all feel unhappy.

In the end, offering the employment to the spouse of each new faculty member Pierce University hire is not a reasonable proposal. From the letter, we can infer that Pierce University had not carried out a spouse-caring system since the department chairperson wrote this letter. Therefore, how the old members would feel, if every new member’s spouse will be offered an employment? Perhaps the morale of the whole staff will not be improved, but to be worsened because of the protest from the old faculties.

In summary, the president should make more contrast between the two schools, analyze the true factors in Pierce University that will arrest the most gifted teachers and researchers, and make the spouse-caring plan carefully.

谢咯！~

钱钱去米国UID: 2761990

In this statement, the author has drawn a rash conclusion that in order to attract more grafted teachers and researchers working for the Pierce University should offer employment to these teachers’ spouses. for the reason that the teachers working in Bronston College whose spouses are also employed in the same geographic are happier living in small town where the Bronston College located in.


First of all, the author fails to provide any evidences to prove that the study’s results conducted by Bronston College are reliable.
A direct correlation between teachers being happier living in small towns and their spouses are employed in the same geographic area, dose not necessary prove that the former causes the latter. There are no high correlations that can be strong evidences of a causal relationship. Many other reasons can causes teachers feeling happier when live in small towns. For instance, the local residents are all warmhearted, it is quite safe living in ten small towns, the environment is comfortable for people living there and the colleagues are friendly. All above may lead them make the decision living there with their spouses and working for the Bronston College. Yet, the author cannot offer the data about how many teachers in the Bronston College being happier when live in small town with their spouses working in the same geographic area. Some people may have opposite answers.

Secondly, even assuming that professors are happier living in small towns because their spouses are also employed in the same geographic area,
a correlation between professors are happier living in small towns and they chose to work for the
Bronston College does not necessary infer a causal relationship. It may be the high welfare that attracts the professors to work there or the college may commit to offer them a substantial research funding. And the reason may also be that the Bronston College has a comfortable researching atmosphere which is good for their studys.what’s more, professors go to the Bronston College, because they prefer to live in small towns, they can also choose other universities that located in small towns. And it is unnecessary to work in the Bronston College for living with their spouses employed in the same geographic area. They can work for other colleges in this area rather than the Bronston College.

Thirdly, teachers’ spouses employed in the same geographic area do not mean that they are working both for the Bronston College. The professors’ spouses may work for other schools or companys.they may not like to become colleagues with their spouses. So offering employment to the spouse of each new faculty member may not be so attract to the new teachers and may not improving the morale of our entire staff at the time when this policy is only for these new faculty members. And these gifted teachers and researchers may mainly focus on the research capability, the quality of their teams, and research funding of this universities rather than offering employment to their spouses. Besides, their spouses maybe not satisfied with the employment offering by the universaty.they may have owned an ideal job and do not need such a job. And offering the employment to the teachers’ spouses seems to be unfair both to the other job hunters and these spouses. In addition, it may put the teachers and their spouses on an unequal position, as their husbands or wives get the jobs by grace of them.

Finaly, the case occur in the Bronston College can not be equal to the Pierce University. Although they are both located in small towns, the author do not tell any other similarities of them. So working in the Bronston College and Pierce University can be quite different. Such as, the local residents in the area where Pierce University located maybe coldhearted, it maybe superb unsafe living here, the environment around Pierce University maybe uncomfortable and the colleagues maybe unfriendly. we are uncertain that offering employment to the spouse of each new faculty member hired by Pierce University will attracting the most gifted teachers and researchers to their faculty or not.

To sum up, the argument suffered from several logical flaws because the studies made by Bronston College and the measures taken in Pierce University hardly lead to the conclusion. To substantiate the final statement, the arguer should provide more information about Pierce University and Bronston College and it is better to offer more evidences on Bronston College’s study.

sola-nanaUID: 2744594

Given studies conducted by Bronston Collegelocated in a small town indicates that both male and female professors arehappier living in small towns when their spouses are also employed in the samegeographic area, the chairperson suggests that Pierce University provideemployment to the spouse of each new faculty member that is hired. The chairpersonlacks some necessary analysis on his suggestion as the conclusion is questionablein the following points.

On the first point, the differences betweentowns of Bronston College and Pierce University are not taken intoconsideration. The chairperson takes the two towns in comparison with the onlyone factor that both towns are small. While it may be irrational for PierceUniversity to merely coping the same actions of Bronston College. From theperspective of society, it may be a tradition or just a common statement for wivesto stay at home taking care of the old and young instead of working outside tosupport the family which may be the job of the husbands in the town of PierceUniversity. And from individuals’ perspective, many of the professor s’ familiesare rich enough to have a living of upper society, and there is no more needfor their spouses to work whether in the same geographic area.

On the second point, even if their spousesare employed in the same geographic area is one of the reasons of the professors’happier lives, there is no mention about if there is some other influence onthe decision of a professor’s stay or leave. After all, no one would take wheretheir spouses work as the only consideration when they choose a job. Other considerationmight be working conditions, salaries, medicalsecurity, social securityand endowment insurance, positions in the university. So, before givingany proposals, one should have an entire analysis on what influences the choiceof professors on the question of accepting the chance or not.

On the third point, there is no proof thatthe offering employment to the spouse of each new hired faculty could improvethe morale of the entire staff of the university. Firstly, could workingtogether give rise to higher morale of the staff? Working together could bringabout happier living of the professors, but there is no mention about otherkind of faculty, and the university could not only consist of professors. While,is happier living standing on the causal relationship with higher morale? Apparentlynot. Happier living with spouses working together could lead to such acomfortable life that distracts the attentions from work to their families. Secondly,how could the new hired faculty stand for the entire staff of the university? Itis an obvious fallacy.

Last but not least, the chairpersonoverlooks an important consideration of his proposal, whether Pierce Universityhas enough vacancies or enough financial support for the spouses of all new faculties?No matter how rational the process of reasoning of a proposal is, the proposalis meaningless when not including the feasibilitywhen taken into practice.

On balance, the proposal from thechairperson is irrational. In order to lead support to his suggestion, thechairperson might take the following advices: 1) it is best to make a study inthe town of Pierce University, where the suggestion is taken into practice. 2) Takean entire of the influences of the decision of leave or stay of a professor. 3)provide more evidence on whether working together with spouse could professorshave higher morale. 4) be aware of the feasibility of a proposal.

youngstoneUID: 2670818

In this letter, the department chairperson concludes that new faculty is more likely to work in Pierce University if their spouses have a job there. To substantiate the conclusion, the chairperson provides the evidence that in Bronston College, when professors in live with their spouses in the same geographic area, these professors are more pleased to live in small towns. In addition, the chairperson suggests that their university should offer job opportunities to their faculty. While clearly examining the argument, we may find that it is not necessary that their spouse’s working near is a main factor to professors’ decisions. Besides, the argument suffered from a false analogy between Bronston College and Pierce University.

In the first place, the fact in Bronston College that professors are more likely to live in small town is not necessary due to their spouses’ living in the same area. It is entirely possible that because some professors preferred to work in Bronston College, their spouses as a result hope to work together. Maybe the professors would choose Bronston College as their working place simply because their spouses are working near. Other crucial factors can also influence the professors’ choices, such as the salary, the working environment, the laboratory equipment, etc. Thus we can not accept the causal relationship between their spouse’ working places and the professors’ choices.

In the second place, even if the assumption that their spouses’ working places can be the most influential factor to the professors’ choices, the argument suffered from a false analogy between Bronston College and Pierce University. The conditions in Bronston College and Pierce University vary drastically. Firstly, Bronston College is located in a small town while we do not know whether Pierce University is also in a small town. People who are more likely to live in a small town often have different attitudes and objectives towards life. They may prefer to live a comfortable life rather than a life full of pressure. Then it is quite reasonable that they want to live with their spouses and thus they will choose a job that can allow them to fulfill their hope. While people who live in a large city may be aspiring and ambitious, then the factors that influence their choices in jobs are quite different. As mentioned above, they may care salary and promotion opportunity more. Secondly, it is the Bronston College professors who have such kind of choice. But the arguer suggests that the spouse of each new faculty should be offered a job opportunity. We do not have any evidence proving what attitudes these non-professors-staff have. Therefore, we can not conclude that they also want to live with their spouses.

In the third place, the statement that it is worthwhile investing in the effort even if these jobs offered are not viewed as ideal jobs is quite unjustified. Firstly, it is quite obvious that if the jobs Pierce University offered are not satisfactory to the new faculty member, they will surely not accept the job. That’s quite a waste of money and time. Secondly, whether Pierce University is able to offer such working opportunities are open to doubt. Because we do not know whether there are enough vacant positions in the university. Even if there are enough, whether these spouses are qualified for these positions is quite uncertain. If there are not enough, the only two ways to offer working opportunities are to fire some employees and to create new positions. The first method is quite unfair and the second costs a lot. In a word, to offer working opportunities for the new faculties’ spouses for the only purpose to encourage these faculties to stay is quite a naïve and unreasonable action.
To sum up, the logical flaws in this argument are so obvious that the evidences the chairperson provides can leads little support to the final conclusion. To bolster the conclusion, the arguer should provide credible evidences that the professors’ preference to live in a small town is due to their spouses’ living near. In addition, the arguer should convince us that the Bolston College and Pierce university are comparable and what happen in Bolston will also happen in Pierce.