【Flyer杀G】小组-7.22 Argument169, by Sean

柏拉图的世界UID: 2581296

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."
WORDS: 122
TIME: 00:08:41
DATE: 2010-7-22 16:51:59

In this argument, the author proposes that Pierce University should provide jobs to the spouses of new faculty. To support his/her assertion, the author mainly offers an example of studies of Bronston College, revealing, as the author states, that both male and female professors are inclined to live in small towns with their couples. However, the author's reasoning, conclusion and consequent suggestion are undermined by several logic flaws.

The critical evidence the author cites is the studies conducted by Bronston College is too vague for us to judge its support to the author's inference. The author fails to tell us, where exactly were the studies made, and who were the respondents, although he/she point the sponsor was Bronston College. If the participants of are in small towns other than the town where Pierce University locates, whether the studies reveal a similar condition of Pierce University will be open to question. Also, we have no idea the statistic information of the studies, like the number of samples, whether samples are randomly chosen, and whether samples are eligible representatives for every professor or pre-defined groups of professors matching the constitution in Pierce University. Lacking these details and statistics the credibility of these studies as an evidence in this argument is unwarranted.

Besides those above, the author presupposed and causal relationship, in results of the studies, between the fact that professors are happier living in small towns and the fact that their spouses are employed in same area, without sufficient justification. It is possible that the two are just synchronous, and the reasons for professors’ more happiness would be some factors else. For instance, the professors are enjoying small towns’ natural environment compared with those metropolitans suffering severe pollution and noise. And they might be satisfied for the advanced instruments or harmonious atmosphere in their universities. Without ruling out those possible explanations for professors’ pleasure, the function of these studies as an evidence is weakened again.

Even if it is true that professors in small town like the place of Pierce University are happier with their spouse working and living near them, the author’s assertion that as long as Pierce University deploy such an action, they will attract more gifted professors and improve morale there is still unconvincing. Maybe the Pierce University are actually holding some defects that prevents it attracting gifted Professors, like inferior salary or insufficient labs. These disadvantages may play as obstacle in author’s plan. And we should notice that previous studies, the professors are “happier” rather than working better in universities. They are happy can be a result of their more spare time to entertain with their families, or they can live more convenient in those remote small town. This happiness doesn’t necessarily equate with the better morale. Professors might not perform better in their jobs. Thus, the author can hardly achieve an improved morale as he/she wishes.

To conclude, the author argument is weakened by scarce information about the studies, unjustified causal relationship, possible factors undermining author’s plan, as well as misunderstanding about the results of the studies. If the author wants to make his/her argument sounder, more information would help a lot. For instance, he/she can provide the specific samples the studies took, and detailed situation in Pierce University.

但我UID: 2763822

In this argument, the author proposes that Pierce University should provide jobs to the spouses of new faculty. To support his/her assertion, the author mainly offers an example of studies of Bronston College, revealing, as the author states, that both male and female professors are inclined to live in small towns with their couples. However, the author's reasoning, conclusion and consequent suggestion are undermined by several logic flaws.
The critical evidence the author cites is the studies conducted by Bronston College is too vague for us to judge its support to the author's inference. The author fails to tell us, where exactly were the studies made, and who were the respondents, although he/she points the sponsor was Bronston College. If the participants of(删去) are in small towns other than the town where Pierce University locates, whether the studies reveal a similar condition of Pierce University will be open to question. Also, we have no idea of the statistic information of the studies, like the number of samples, whether samples are randomly chosen, and whether samples are eligible representatives for(of吧) every professor or pre-defined groups of professors matching the constitution in Pierce University. Lacking these details and statistics the credibility of these studies as an evidence in this argument is unwarranted.
The critical evidence the author cites is the studies conducted by Bronston College is too vague for us to judge its support to the author's inference.感觉有点不对，但是不知道怎么改,不知道以下调整对不对 The studies conducted by B College which is citied by the author as the critical evidence is too vague for us to judge its support to the author's inference.
Besides those above, the author presupposed and causal relationship, in (as a result of )results of the studies, between the fact that professors are happier living in small towns and the fact that their spouses are employed in the same area, without sufficient justification. It is possible that the two are just synchronous, and the reasons for professors’ more happiness would be some factors else. For instance, the professors are enjoying small towns’ natural environment compared with those metropolitans suffering severe pollution and noise. And they might be satisfied (with) for the advanced instruments or harmonious atmosphere in their universities. Without ruling out those possible explanations for professors’ pleasure, the function of these studies as an evidence is weakened again.
Even if it is true that professors in small town like the place of Pierce University are happier with their spouse working and living near them, the author’s assertion that as long as Pierce University deploys such an action, they will attract more gifted professors and improve morale there(delete “there”) is still unconvincing. Maybe the Pierce University are(is) actually holding some defects that prevents it from attracting gifted Professors, like inferior salary or insufficient labs. These disadvantages may play as obstacles in author’s plan. And we should notice that in previous studies, the professors are “happier” rather than working better in universities. They are happy(Their happiness) can be a result of their more spare time to entertain with their families, or they can live more convenient than those in remote small town. This happiness doesn’t necessarily equate with the better morale. Professors might not perform better in their jobs. Thus, the author can hardly achieve an improved morale as he/she wishes.
To conclude, the author’s argument is weakened by scarce information about the studies, unjustified causal relationship, possible factors undermining author’s plan, as well as misunderstanding about(删去about) the results of the studies. If the author wants to make his/her argument sounder, more information would help a lot. For instance, he/she can provide the specific samples the studies took, and detailed situation in Pierce University.
黄色是值得学习的地方，红字是个人认为需要改的地方