Definitely, a victory 小组第1次作业 Argument169 By3号echo（huohuo0101）

huohuo0101UID: 2760840

169.The 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."

    The author proposed that job offers to the spouse of each new faculty member will attract more gifted teachers and researchers to Pierce University which is located in a small town. The proposal was based on a study result that both male and female professors are happier living in small towns when their spouses are also employed in the same geographic area. I think the proposal unpersuasive on many aspects.

    First of all, for a competent teacher or a professional researcher, condition of the objective university such as academic atmosphere, student source and lab access should be put in priority when job hunting rather than offers to their spouses. Creating job opportunities for potentially hired researchers’ spouses is an unworthy investment on an insignificant detail.

  
  Second, the author fail to provide reasons behind the study result that professors hope their spouses could be employed in the same geographic area. Thus falsely assumes that professors in Pierce University share the same wish with ones in Bronston University. Besides the most apparent reason that couples like to spend more time together, there may be other explanations, some of which could even weight over the original one. Maybe it’s because many big enterprises with good salary and development opportunities are located in the same town with Bronston University. Or maybe it costs too much for the professors and their spouses to meet probably because the town is very distant from the city where their spouses work and the traffic is not convenient enough. Neither of the explanation could be transplanted without evidence to the different town where Pierce University is located.
   
    Third, if the assumption was substantiated that professors at Pierce University wish their spouses could be employed in the same geographic area. To attract new teachers, the universities should first consider alternative solutions to satisfy the need but cost less. For example, the college can pay more to cover the traffic fee or elongate holiday for the mutual visit.

     In addition, a matter of fairness should be taken into consideration from two perspectives if the proposal is accepted. If new teachers’ spouse get job offers from the university, the old professors will surly ask for the same treat. Thus the investment would be unexpectedly increased. And if a great many job opportunities were only open to spouses, it would leave the the impression of closeness on community.

   To sum up, the author focuses too much on an uncritical detail that attracts professors and transplants a study result to a different situation without evidence. Thus proposes to offer job to potentially hired professors’ spouses without considering the alternative solution and consequence. To bolster the proposal, the author need to prove that job offer to spouse is a critical factor when professors choose among universities. And substantiate the assumption that professors in Pierce University like their spouse to be employed in the same area . Then provide the evidence that the need can’t be satisfied with other alternative solution but job offers. At last, it has to be quarantined that the proposal will not lead to further investment and negative social impression.