Argument9，求猛拍啊，不太会写A。先谢谢啦~~

长幸UID: 2807325

TOPIC: ARGUMENT9 - The following appeared in a memorandum from a dean at Omega University.
"Fifteen years ago, Omega University implemented a new procedure that encouraged students to evaluate the teaching effectiveness of all their professors. Since that time, Omega professors have begun to assign higher grades in their classes, and overall student grade averages at Omega have risen by thirty percent. Potential employers apparently believe the grades at Omega are inflated; this would explain why Omega graduates have not been as successful at getting jobs as have graduates from nearby Alpha University. To enable its graduates to secure better jobs, Omega University should now terminate student evaluation of professors."


In the argument, the author recommends that the student evaluation of professors should be forbidden in Omega University. To support this recommendation, the author cites the increase of overall student grade averages which may be caused by the evaluation and which would explain why students in Omega are not so successful as students in Alpha in getting jobs. The argument, however, relies on a serious of faulty assumptions and is therefore unconvincing as it stands.

Firstly, based on the fact that the overall student grade averages have risen occurred after the procedure implemented, the author commits a fallacy of "after this, therefore because of this" in assuming that the procedure is responsible for scores increasing. However, it might be the case that the level of students who have the chances to study in Omega much higher and it is easy for them to get high marks no matter what procedure implemented. It also might be the case that the paper is not as difficult as that in the past which leads to such phenomenon. Lacking evidence to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between the procedure and high grade, it is presumptuous to draw the conclusion.

Even if the evaluation contributes to higher grades which the are believed inflated, this maybe cannot indicate the Omega University students' failure in getting jobs. The company won't choose their employees only by their grades in university and they must consider some other factors such as their abilities of communicating with customs, their computer skills, whether they can use another language familiarly or if they are active enough to take part in the job. What's more, the author provides no information of students in Alpha University and the university itself. Perhaps those students are all of great excellent ones and genius, or perhaps Alpha University provides better education compared with Omega and has outstanding reputation. For that matter, the author's hasty conclusion that inflated marks due to their failure in finding a position is unwarranted.

Finally, the author infers the conclusion that stopping the procedure will be benefit to students on getting jobs from the experience which was taken fifteen years ago. Nevertheless, he omits to offer any evidence to substantiate this reference and it is most likely that many factors have changed over this time span. Perhaps the evaluation is much formal than before. Perhaps there is no relation between the marks and the results of evaluation. Or even perhaps the style of examinations has changed and the grades will not be given by professors. Any of these scenarios, if true, would serve to undermine the conclusion.

In sum, the author cannot justify his recommendation on the basis of the scant evidence given in the argument. To make it logically acceptable, the dean should provide more evidence to show the relationship between high scores and the evaluation of professors. And we also need to know the standards used by companies to choose employees. Additionally, to better evaluate the argument, the different conditions of both now and in the past are significant to be provided.