argument140 欢迎砸砖 拍者必回拍

thiohuUID: 193100

--argument 140----题目------
The following appeared in a report of the Committee on Faculty Promotions and Salaries at Elm City University.
'During her seventeen years as a professor of botany, Professor Thomas has proved herself to be well worth her annual salary of $50,000. Her classes are among the largest at the university, demonstrating her popularity among students. Moreover, the money she has brought to the university in research grants has exceeded her salary in each of the last two years. Therefore, in consideration of Professor Thomas' demonstrated teaching and research abilities, we recommend that she receive a $10,000 raise and a promotion to Department Chairperson; without such a raise and promotion, we fear that Professor Thomas will leave Elm City University for another college.'

In the report, a committee at Elm City University recommends that Professor Thomas should receive a salary raise and a promotion to Department Chairperson because of her teaching and research abilities. To bolster the recommendation, the author points out that Professor Thomas's classes are among the largest in the university and the money she brought to the university exceeded her salary. However, the argument is flawed in several critical aspects.

To begin with, the report relies on the assumption that Professor Thomas's popularity of her classes is attributable to her effectiveness as a teacher. Yet, this assumption overlooks other possible explanations for the popularity. It is entirely possible that Professor Thomas gave generous scores to students and students chose her classes merely for high score other than her teaching ability. It is also possible that botany classes are relatively few compared with the students in the university who wanted to learn botany, and students had no choice but to choose Professor Thomas. Without considering and ruling out these and other alternative explanations for the popularity, the author cannot convince me that Professor Thomas is effective as a teacher and therefore should receive a pay raise.

Secondly, the mere fact that the money Professor brought to the university exceeded her salary lends little credible support to prove that Professor Thomas is an outstanding researcher. Perhaps other professors in the university brought more grants, comparing with their salaries. For this matter, Professor Thomas would not merit a salary raise and a promotion according to the current criterion.  

Thirdly, even if Professor Thomas has demonstrated his higher teaching and research abilities, the author still cannot justifiably assumes that he deserves a 10000 dollars raise and a promotion to chairperson. Perhaps the committee should raise Professor Thomas’ salary to 8000 dollars rather than 10000 dollar’s according to the current salary criterion. Or perhaps Professor Thomas was not competent in administration business and would not suit to department chairperson. For this matter, perhaps there was another person in this department, who was more excellent than Professor Thomas and more competent to administrate. In short, the author cannot convince me that Professor Thomas merited the pay raise and promotion.

Finally, the author further assumes that the recommended salary and promotion would certainly keep professor from defecting to other universities. However, no evidence is offered to bolster the assumption. Perhaps, other universities were willing to offer more attractive salary and position to Professor Thomas. Or perhaps Professor Thomas cared more about more sophisticated facilities for her study and more excellent graduates, and a salary raise and promotion are less attractive.

To sum up, the argument is untenable as it stands. To support it ,the author should provide clearer evidence to prove that Professor Thomas was in fact outstanding as a teacher and researcher----perhaps by a survey showing students chose Professor Thomas for her teaching ability and some paper of Professor demonstrating her research ability. To better evaluate the argument, I need to know whether other universities were willing to offer more attractive salary and promotion to Professor Thomas.

ctxUID: 199330

In the report, a committee at Elm City University recommends that Professor Thomas should receive a salary raise and a promotion to Department Chairperson because of her teaching and research abilities. To bolster the recommendation, the author points out that Professor Thomas's classes are among the largest in the university and the money she brought to the university exceeded her salary. However, the argument is flawed in several critical aspects.

To begin with, the report relies on the assumption that Professor Thomas's popularity of her classes is attributable to her effectiveness （effectiveness感觉怪怪的，建议改为good work） as a teacher. Yet, this assumption overlooks other possible explanations for the (her吧) popularity. It is entirely possible that Professor Thomas gave generous scores to students and students chose her classes merely for high score other than her teaching ability. It is also possible that botany classes are relatively few compared with the students in the university who wanted （want） to learn botany, (上面这句话改为It is also possible that the number of botany courses are relatively low compared with the number of students intending to learn botany, 是否好一点？) and students had (have) no choice but to choose Professor Thomas. Without considering and ruling out these and other alternative explanations for the （her） popularity, the author cannot convince me that Professor Thomas is effective as a teacher and therefore should receive a pay raise.

Secondly, the mere fact that the money Professor brought to the university exceeded her salary lends little credible support to prove that Professor Thomas is an outstanding researcher. Perhaps other professors in the university brought more grants, comparing with their salaries. For this matter, Professor Thomas would not merit a salary raise and a promotion according to the current criterion. （个人感觉你提的理由也不充分，即使别人弄的钱更多，文章并没有提别人就没有升职而只升Thomas）

Thirdly, even if Professor Thomas has (had, 虚拟语气是不是更好呢？) demonstrated his higher teaching and research abilities, the author still cannot justifiably assumes that he （she，女的） deserves a 10000 dollars raise and a promotion to chairperson. Perhaps the committee should raise Professor Thomas’ salary to 8000 dollars rather than 10000 dollar’s according to the current salary criterion. （后面这部分我觉得说服力不强） Or perhaps Professor Thomas was not competent in administration business and would not suit to （to be） department chairperson. For this matter, perhaps there was another person in this department, who was more excellent than Professor Thomas and more competent to administrate(似乎应用现在时). In short, the author cannot convince me that Professor Thomas merited the pay raise and promotion.

Finally, the author further assumes that the recommended salary and promotion would certainly keep professor from defecting to other universities. However, no evidence is offered to bolster the assumption. Perhaps, other universities were willing to offer more attractive salary and position to Professor Thomas. Or perhaps Professor Thomas cared more about more sophisticated facilities for her study and more excellent graduates, and a salary raise and promotion are less attractive.

To sum up, the argument is untenable as it stands. To support it, the author should provide clearer evidence to prove that Professor Thomas was in fact outstanding as a teacher and researcher----perhaps by a survey showing students chose Professor Thomas for her teaching ability (改为perhaps by correctly establishing a causal relationship between her teaching ability and her popularity among students) and some paper（s） of Professor demonstrating her research ability. To better evaluate the argument, I need to know whether other universities were willing to offer more attractive salary and promotion to Professor Thomas.

总体感觉写得不错，当然我水平有限，可能改得不好，但希望能对你有所帮助。
另外明天我会继续写的，希望文章贴出后能帮我改一下，谢谢!

thiohuUID: 193100

Thanks a lot
我会继续努力
你的文章我会认真改的