argument222 G89 8月高频！模考失败之作，超时。欢迎砖头砸来~~

mvpzhuangUID: 205051

Argument 222
The following article appeared in a recent issue of a college newspaper.
'Among all students who graduated from Hooper University over the past five years, more physical science majors than social science majors found permanent jobs within a year of graduation. In a survey of recent Hooper University graduates, most physical science majors said they believed that the prestige of Hooper University's physical science programs helped them significantly in finding a job. In contrast, social science majors who found permanent employment attributed their success to their own personal initiative. Therefore, to ensure that social science majors find permanent jobs, Hooper University should offer additional social science courses and hire several new faculty members who already have national reputations in the social sciences.'


In the article, the author recommended that in order to help social science majors’ graduates find permanent jobs the Hooper University should offer more social science courses and hire national reputations people in the social sciences as their new faculty. To support it, the author cites several evidence. However, none of them can lend strong support to the conclusion after careful scrutiny.

First of all, the evidence that students in physical science majors who graduated from Hooper University found permanent jobs within a year of graduation are more than those who in social science majors over the past five years can not bolster the author's recommendation. First, the author use the evidence that lasts only five years, however five-year is not long enough when it come to a permanent jobs for the graduates. It is possible that who have worked for five years may be fired in the sixth year. Second, the evidence only includes the situation of employment within a year of graduation. It is possible that social science majors’ graduates found more permanent jobs than physical science majors did after one year of graduation. Moreover, the author ignores a very important difference between the two majors. Compared with jobs that physical science majors matches, those jobs that social science majors matches are facing more changes while little vacation can be a permanent one attribute to changes in them over time(我想表达社会科学所对应的职位是不会永久，因为社会，经济在变。怎么表达阿？). All above-mentioned will render the evidence less convincing.

Another problem is about the survey which was done among recent Hooper University graduates. There is no evidence can prove that the number of the recent graduates are large enough and can represent the overall. Additionally, the author fails to tell us whether the survey was anonymous or not. It is entirely possible that the physical graduates did not tell the truth for they thought they may benefit from doing so. What is more, the result of the survey is also dubious for the graduates placing too much emphasis on the functions of the prestige of Hooper University's physical science programs and the social science graduates are totally depending on themselves to find permanent jobs. However, there is no detail evidence can show that the physical science programs are superior to social science programs. Even admit it, the result is too extreme that both prestige and personal initiative play important role in finding jobs. Therefore, the survey is weak to support the conclusion.

Finally, the recommendation made by the author has several flaws too. First, the reasons contribute to finding permanent jobs are not only the reputations but also the abilities and potential intelligence which are more significant, and the measures given by universities to help graduates to find jobs are also very important. Second, the author did not take into account of the fiscal abilities that whether the university can pay for the new faculties who all have national reputations in social sciences and whose salaries would surely high. Moreover, the author ignores other possible methods that can also increase the prestige of social science majors but costs less.

To sum up, the author's recommendation is not well supported in this argument. To convince me, the author must give more credible evidence to prove that the reason for social science majors' graduates failing in finding permanent jobs attributes to the low prestige of the programs. To better assess the recommendation, we need more information about whether there are other methods to reach the same goal.

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-8-16 at 11:37 ]

steven1984UID: 206443

占个座先

steven1984UID: 206443

In the article, the author recommended that in order to help social science majors’ graduates find permanent jobs the Hooper University should offer more social science courses and hire national reputations people in the social sciences as their new faculty. To support it, the author cites several (several只能修饰可数名词把)evidence. However, none of them can lend strong support to the conclusion after careful scrutiny.

First of all, the evidence that students in physical science majors who graduated from Hooper University found permanent jobs within a year of graduation are more than those who in social science majors over the past five years can not bolster the author's recommendation. First, the author use the evidence that lasts only five years, however five-year is not long enough when it come to a permanent jobs for the graduates. It is possible that who have worked for five years may be fired in the sixth year. Second, the evidence only includes the situation of employment within a year of graduation. It is possible that social science majors’ graduates found more permanent jobs than physical science majors did after one year of graduation. Moreover, the author ignores a very important difference between the two majors. Compared with jobs that physical science majors matches, those jobs that social science majors matches are facing more changes while little vacation can be a permanent one attribute to changes in them over time(我想表达社会科学所对应的职位是不会永久，因为社会，经济在变。怎么表达阿？). All above-mentioned will render the evidence less convincing.(我觉得这段有问题，我的理解是，原题中的permanent job应该指的是永久性的工作把，而不是你所想表达的那个五年内未被解雇的工作，实际上美国每个州应该对permanent job有不同的定义的，基准时说每周35个小时以上的叫permanent job，这里有个连接http://www.corpacctportal.illinois.gov/PublicAct.aspx 其实第一个错误可以讲permanent job定义是不明确的，什么算permanent，)

Another problem is about the survey which was done among recent Hooper University graduates. There is no evidence can prove that the number of the recent graduates are large enough and can represent the overall. Additionally, the author fails to tell us whether the survey was anonymous or not. It is entirely possible that the physical graduates did not tell the truth for they thought they may benefit from doing so. （这里你并没有讲清为什么阿，只是说会有好处，不说明的话支持的力度是很弱的）What is more, the result of the survey is also dubious for the graduates placing too much emphasis on the functions of the prestige of Hooper University's physical science programs and the social science graduates are totally depending on themselves to find permanent jobs. However, there is no detail evidence can show that the physical science programs are superior to social science programs. Even admit it, the result is too extreme that both prestige and personal initiative play important role in finding jobs. Therefore, the survey is weak to support the conclusion.（好像这里的大部分都只是说了错误，并没有给具体解释，这样支持力度会小的）:)

Finally, the recommendation made by the author has several flaws too. First, the reasons contribute to finding permanent jobs are not only the reputations but also the abilities and potential intelligence which are more significant, and the measures given by universities to help graduates to find jobs are also very important. Second, the author did not take into account of the fiscal abilities that whether the university can pay for the new faculties who all have national reputations in social sciences and whose salaries would surely high. Moreover, the author ignores other possible methods that can also increase the prestige of social science majors but costs less. （我觉得似乎批判点挺多的，但是都没什么展开好像）

To sum up, the author's recommendation is not well supported in this argument. To convince me, the author must give more credible evidence to prove that the reason for social science majors' graduates failing in finding permanent jobs attributes to the low prestige of the programs. To better assess the recommendation, we need more information about whether there are other methods to reach the same goal.
总的还是不错的，支持一下

mvpzhuangUID: 205051

谢谢阿
一限时就晕头了