Argument169 欢迎拍文7.12

heartleadingUID: 2850897

TOPIC: 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."

Outline:
1,study缺乏必要信息；
2，没有考虑其他影响接受offer的因素；
3，无根据地假设那些杰出的老师和研究人员将配偶的就业机会作为是否接受offer 的关键因素。

In the letter, the chairperson attempts to convince us that offering employment to the spouse of new professors will be worthwhile. To support the recommendation, the arguer cites the study from Bronston College, a study that both male and female professors are happier living in small town when their spouses also work in the same geographic area. In addition, the arguer also points out that both Pierce University and Bronston College are located in small towns. Furthermore, the arguer reasons that the most gifted teachers and researchers would be attracted. At first glance, the argument appears to be somewhat convincing, but further reflection reveals that it omits enough warranted evidence that should be addressed to substantiate the argument.

The threshold problem with the argument involves a study itself. The survey cited by the author is too vague to be informative. The claim does not indicate who conducted the poll, who responded, or when, where and how the poll was conducted. Lacking information about the cardinal base number of professors and the amount of respondents, it is impossible to access the validity of the results. For instance, if the sample included only the professors in Bronston College, then the result would no doubt suggest. Or if the grosses are considerable, the responders account for only a little percentage which renders the result meaningless. In short, without clearer details about the survey, it is unreliable to draw any conclusion about how Pierce might attract new professors.

Another problem that weakens the logic of the argument is that chairperson fails to consider many other relevant factors that may influence new professors' decisions. For example, the local climate and policy made by governor are factors to consider when choosing whether accept offers. Besides, the gifted teachers and researchers take the income into consideration, that's to say, the Pierce should pay high enough to attract them. What's more, the facilities condition, such as the amount of laboratories, is a key factor as well.

Even if the proposed actions are affective in attracting new professors, we can not guarantee that the action will attract the most gifted teachers and researchers, and necessarily improve the morale of stuff. The argument unwarrantedly assume that gifted teachers and researchers consider employment for their spouses a key factor in determining accepting job offers. However, the letter provides no evidence to validate the assumption. In fact, it is entirely possible that the faculty in the Bronston College study did not involve the most gifted teachers and researchers Pierce University interested to attract. If this is the case, Pierce cannot expect the offers will be accepted just because Pierce provides employment of faculty spouses.

In sum up, the arguer fails to validate his claim that offering employment to the spouse of new professors will be worthwhile because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To bolster it, the arguer would have to provide much clearer details to demonstrate the study by Bronston College. Additionally, to solidify the conclusion, the arguer must rule out the above-mentioned possibilities that might determine the argument. Furthermore, in order to access the argument, we need more concrete information concerning the key factors when choosing offers. Therefore, if the argument had included the given factors discussed above, it would have been more thorough and logically acceptable.

alickenUID: 2845947

首先应当赞作者挺能写( 500多字)，作者的思路比较清晰，首先指出调查的不足，然后提出另外因素的影响，最后采取让步的方式指出 most gifted teacher 可能不会接受。

这里有一点问题（纯属个人意见）: letter中的study实际上就是一个前提假设，和作者在倒数第2段提到的那个假设差不多，都是假设只要提供配偶的工作，gifted teacher 就会来，所以我认为可以一来就攻击这个假设。

还有就是作者既然在开头已经把letter 的问题写的很详细了，我认为最后一段可以简写，不必要这么长，把时间花在中间的论述段会更好。

In the letter, the chairperson attempts to convince us that offering employment to the spouse of new professors will be worthwhile. To support the recommendation, the arguer cites the study from Bronston College, a study that both male and female professors are happier living in small town when their spouses also work in the same geographic area. In addition, the arguer also points out that both Pierce University and Bronston College are located in small towns. Furthermore, the arguer reasons that the most gifted teachers and researchers would be attracted. At first glance, the argument appears to be somewhat convincing, but further reflection reveals that it omits enough warranted evidence that should be addressed to substantiate the argument.
The threshold problem with(is) the argument involves a study itself. The survey(study) cited(cites) by the author is too vague to be informative. (或者直接说:The threshold problem in the argument is the problem of the study itself which the argument involves.) The claim does not indicate who conducted the poll, who responded, or(nor) when, where and how the poll was conducted. Lacking information about the cardinal base number of professors and the amount of respondents, it is impossible to access the validity of the results. For instance, if the sample included only the professors in Bronston College, then the result would no doubt suggest.(这句没读懂，是不应该是如果sample只包含BC，结果不可信) Or if the grosses are considerable, the responders account for only a little percentage which renders the result meaningless. （Or even if the gross is considerable, but the responds account for only a little percentage of the gross, which renders the result is meaningless.）In short, without clearer details about the survey, it is unreliable to draw any conclusion about how Pierce might attract new professors.（it is unreliable to draw the conclusion that Pierce can attract new professors in this way）
Another problem that weakens the logic of the argument is that chairperson fails to consider many other relevant factors that may influence new professors' decisions. For example, the local climate and policy made by governor(government policy) are factors to consider when choosing whether accept offers. Besides, the(some) gifted teachers and researchers (may) take the income into consideration, that's to say, the Pierce should pay high enough to attract them. What's more, the facilities condition, such as the amount of laboratories, is a key factor as well.
Even if the proposed actions are affective in attracting new professors, we can not guarantee that the action will attract the most gifted teachers and researchers, and necessarily improve the morale of stuff.(读到这里以为你要从most 下手，还有后面的论述没有提到morale) The argument unwarrantedly assume that gifted teachers and researchers consider employment for their spouses a key factor in determining accepting job offers. However, the letter provides no evidence to validate the assumption. In fact, it is entirely possible that the faculty in the Bronston College study did not involve the most gifted teachers and researchers Pierce University interested to attract.(你这里又在说study了) If this is the case, Pierce cannot expect the offers will be accepted just because Pierce provides employment of faculty spouses.
(细看之后，我认为这段的论述和前面两段都有点重复，既是在说study有问题，又在说可能其他因素是主因，所以还是建议把这段和第一段合并，共同攻击他的前提假设。然后把这段空出来对 morale 下手)
In(To) sum up, the arguer fails to validate his claim that offering employment to the spouse of new professors will be worthwhile because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintains. To bolster it, the arguer would have to provide much clearer details to demonstrate the study by Bronston College. Additionally, to solidify the conclusion, the arguer must rule out the above-mentioned possibilities that might determine the argument. Furthermore, in order to access the argument, we need more concrete information (about) concerning the key factors when choosing offers. Therefore, if the argument had included the given factors discussed above, it would have been more thorough and logically acceptable.