第九篇argu 为啥总感觉越写越差 越写越烂呢

raisebenUID: 2867978

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: 579
TIME: 01:05:49
DATE: 2011/2/12 17:24:30

The argument appears to be convincing at the first glance. The chairperson asserts that Pierce University should offer employment to the spouse of each new faculty member they hire in order to attract the most gifted teachers and researchers to their faculty and improve the morale of their entire staff. The conclusion results from some studies, conducted by Bronson College, which is also located in a small town, revealing that both male and female professors are happier living in small towns when their spouses are also employed in the same geographic area. Furthermore, the indication--the money invested in this effort will obviously be well spent although there is no guarantee that all offers can be accepted or to be viewed as an ideal job offers--is attributed to the assumption, if their spouses have a chance of employment, new professors will be more likely to accept our offers. Several logical flaws, however, make it unstable as it stands.

To begin with, even assuming that these survey as mentioned are convincing and reflect the real situations in Bronston College, there is no assurance that it will be effective in Perce University. Yet this argument, based on a false analogy, fails to take into consideration the differences in the two schools--the scale of the school, the various problems they faced respectively and other environmental variables. Perhaps the scale of Pierce University is smaller than other schools in the small town so that the university have already had enough staff to make school performing effectively, more spouses of their employee will put extra pressure on university.
So we cannot safely assumes that these studies will just work as well in Pierce University, because the author gives no basis for a direct comparison between the two school, but his own personal ideas.

In addition, even I grant the surveys are suitable to Pierce University, we cannot guarantee that by taking such actions Pierce University can attract the most gifted teachers and researchers to their faculty and improve the morale of their entire staff. In these surveys, the writer just tells us that both male and female, rather than the most gifted teachers and researchers, are happier living in small towns when their spouses are also employed in the same geographic area, therefore we cannot come to a conclusion according to these surveys conducted by Bronson College. Statistically speaking, it is entirely possible that the professors surveyed are mainly common teacher, not the most talent ones. If so, how can writer come to such a conclusion just informed with the partial information?

Last but not least, to add to the lack of credibility, the argument does not discuss the other measures to be taken to attract the most talent teachers and researchers and improve the morale o their staff except for providing offers to the spouses of each new faculty. In a small town, university can establish the perfect appraisal and the reward mechanism to appeal to more talent ones and make efforts on the development of the educational quality enhancing its reputation. Maybe providing offers to the spouses of each new faculty is not the best solution to problem Pierce faced.


To sum up, the evidence provided by the author is too vague to be either revealing or well-argued. The writer fails to build any casual relationship between the surveys and his decisions. To make his assumption more cogent, more comprehensive studies about his own school, Pierce University, should be made.

vincentmeUID: 2562863

开头把题目全抄了啊。。。

1. 攻击调查。感觉这个调查没啥好攻击的，人之常情嘛。。。

2. 攻击适用性。感觉也没啥好说的，难道天才都不喜欢配偶在身边么，人之常情。。。

3. 攻击更好办法。这段应该可以。

以下是我的提纲，一家之言。。

1. 提供配偶职位的对接受offer的影响力。虽然调查显示配偶在同一地区更高兴，但是不表示这对新教授至关重要。可能更看重实验环境，研究氛围，学生素质，薪水，在学校的发言权等等。

2. 即使有重要影响，这是最好的途径吗。学校的职位够不够，能否让配偶满意。另一方面，配偶的水平能否满足学校岗位的要求。可能有些老师不喜欢夫妻在一起上班。这种情况下不如介绍配偶在镇上别的地方去。

3. 提升整个士气。现在配偶不在身边的老师怎么办，解不解决他们问题：1. 解决。这些人平庸的怎么办，花太大代价。2，不解决。人为造成不平等，士气降低。

咖啡盐UID: 2973669

一篇argument写500+没必要，很容易造成攻击乏力，难免会有点捡了芝麻丢西瓜

主要还是分清主次错误，丰富论证

raisebenUID: 2867978

其实我对于全抄题目听没把握的 可是又不会更好的方法 求正解！谢谢
2# vincentme

raisebenUID: 2867978

我一般的展开都是 按一下的顺序来的
第一句先指出谬误
第二句稍作阐述
第三句写反例
第四句 总结

其实我也会感到攻击乏力 请问有较好的解决方法吗？
3# 咖啡盐

咖啡盐UID: 2973669

你去网上找找ETS的范文吧，把1,2,3,4,5,6分的都要看看，你就会有个比较清楚的概念了。