argument169 -拍文修改小组 6.12

jessie_1017UID: 2704525

Argument169
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."

In this letter the chairperson of Pierce University (PU) advocate to attract the most gifted teachers and researchers by offering employment to the spouse of each new faculty member they hire, the reason why they do it is based on some studies conducted by Broston College (BC) revealed that both male and female professors are happier living in small towns when their spouses are also employed in the same geographic area. However, the chairperson’s statement relies on unsubstantial assumptions about the similarity between PU and BC, and also about how the most gifted professors choose the jobs.

First of all, there is an obvious false analogy that speaker claims between PU and BC, after all, they are different in geographic location, teaching conditions and researching atmosphere. The mere fact that teachers and researchers in BC are prefer living in small towns where their spouses worked there scant evidence that PU will succeed in attracting talent teachers according to BC’s research. Common sense tells me that even BC and PU are both small towns, PU is far more involved than BC because of so many factors that influence the result, such as different professors in totally dissimilar places may give different choices due to their personal habits, and considering the disparity in teaching standard, options diverse absolutely.

Secondly, though spouses of professors have the job in same geographic area as professors do, it does not mean that they can accept the employment which offered by the one that hires professors as well. In the view of BC’s studies, it shows same geographic area only not the same workplace,. There is no denying the fact that although PU would like to offer jobs in university, spouses may refuse this employment for some reasons , on the contrary, what result it may lead to is lose these gifted teachers and researchers.

For the last one, all the professors who are surveyed in the BC’s studies may not be the gifted ones and the speaker disregard this standpoint. Some other important factors for gifted professors in choosing the right place to work have been ignored by the arguer. It quite be possible that gifted ones concern developing valid space , houses and salaries more when compared with the spouses’ jobs in a same geographic area. Thus, the consideration of PU about attracting famous teachers is insufficient and unilateral.

To sum up, the letter is unpersuasive as it stands,. To strengthen it, the arguer should provide more sufficient evidence to attract these gifted teachers, so that we can evaluate feasibility of chairperson’s plan.