argument26 第二篇，请帮看一下，谢谢

louaciUID: 159481

题目：26The following appeared in a memo from the chairperson of the school board in the town of Saluda.
"For the past five years, Mr. Charles Schade has been the music director at Steel City High School, and during that time the school band from Steel City High has won three regional band competitions. In addition, the quality of the music rehearsal facilities and musical instruments at Steel City High has improved markedly over the past five years. Because of such successes at Steel City High, the Saluda school board should hire Mr. Schade to plan and direct the general music education programs for the entire Saluda school system."

正文：
This argument claims that the Sluda school should hire Mr. Schade to plan and direct the general music education because of the school band's winning record and remarkable improvement in the quality of the music rehearsal facilities and musical instruments during Mr. Schade's incumbation as the music director at Steel City High School. Though at first glance the claim seems reasonable, closer scrutiny shows that it suffers from a couple of unreliable reasoning.

The argument rests on the unsubstantiated assumption that Steel City High School and the Sluda school are sufficiently alike in ways that might affect the success of a music director. If they are not similar in nature, the claim to hire Mr. Schade is unreasonable. A music director successful at Steel City High School may not work well at the Sluda school because he has to deal with problems different in nature from his past experience. For example, if eventually hired by the Sluda school, Mr. Schade may face a series of difficulties like regional difference, different music education levels, or larger or smaller investment in music education, all of which cannot be easily overcome by copying his past experiences.  

Additionally, even if the two schools are comparable, there is a major difference between the Saluda school's requirement and the quality of the candidate. As the claim points out, what the Saluda school needs is a music director who is able to plan and direct general music education programs for the entire Saluda school system. However, from the evidence provided by the arguer, we only see a music director who has succeeded in directing school band and improving music facilities and instruments. Apparently directing music programs and directing school band and making improvements in music facilities and instruments are different fields in music education, which requires different abilities. Common sense tells us that directing general music education programs demands someone that is highly organized and all-rounded thoughtful. On the other hand, an inspiring and more creative director may be more appropriate in leading a successful band. Still, making remarkable improvements in music facilities and instruments needs someone's expertise in such professional field. Lacking such evidence that Mr. Schade is an expert in planning and directing music education programs for school, it is quite possible that Mr. Schade will not meet the Sluda school' s requirements despite his excellence in other specific fields of music education.

Moreover, the claim bases on the success in music education at Steel City High School in the past five years and indicates that the same can be expected at the Sluda school. Yet again common sense tells us that situations change as the time changes. Past success does not necessarily guarantee future success. Even though those measures taken by Mr. Schade in the past five years at Steel City High School can work effectively and efficiently at the Sluda school at the same time, no information is provided to prove that such measures can be helpful now and in the future.

In conclusion, the claim to hire Mr.Charles Schade who was successful at Steel City High School is not logically sounded by the evidence and facts provided by the arguer. He\she ignores the potential differences between the two schools, falsely equals the quality they look for with the candidate's, and fails to take time change into account. Therefore, to better substantiate his\her claim, the arguer should provide further information concerning those factors mentioned above.

简单的提纲：
1 错误类比两校
2 所要求的音乐指导任务与给出的成功音乐指导本质不一致
3 没考虑时间因素，过去五年的经验到现在不一定适用

个人感觉又写长了，但没能一针见血地说得特别透彻，苦啊~

imjasonUID: 176604

好象不是两个学校，SALUDA是个地区哦
所以应该是管得好一个学校，管一个地区就有点困难。
SC这个学校也许音乐方面就很强，
设备的改善可能是学校的规划，
菜鸟的一点小提纲。呵呵
好象前两天有人写了这个题目的，我去看下

imjasonUID: 176604

https://bbs.gter.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=245056

louaciUID: 159481

many thanks!