Argument0 敬请大家赐教，谢谢. 请留下链接，方便回拍

Archer1123UID: 206148

（这题目是ＥＴＳ用来抽样的，所以没提供题号）
The University of Claria is generally considered one of the best universities in the world because of its instructors' reputation, which is based primarily on the extensive research and publishing record of certain faculty members.  In addition, several faculty members are internationally renowned as leaders in their fields.  For example, many of the faculty from the English department are regularly invited to teach at universities in other countries.  Furthermore, two recent graduates of the physics department have gone on to become candidates for the Nobel Prize in Physics.  And 75 percent of the students are able to find employment after graduating.  Therefore, because of the reputation of its faculty, the University of Claria should be the obvious choice for anyone seeking a quality education.

1.        教师声誉好不代表大学就好，而且研究广泛和出版情况不能完全反应教师声誉，调查只显示了一部分教师
2.        学术带头人不表示教学好，还有可能由于过多的国际邀请影响正常的教学工作
3.        2个人的例子只谈物理系，其它系如何？也没有和其它学校比较；
4.        工作的好坏未谈, 也没有和其它学校比较；
5.        忽略了影响选择学校的其它因素
In the argument, the author claims that University Claria (UC) is one of the best choices for those who seek a quality education. That statement is unfounded and cannot be accepted under the examination and scrutiny. Though the author cites examples to substantiate the conclusion. At the first glance, the argument seems plausible and reasonable, on the second thought; however, as a matter of fact it is not persuasive as it stands.

To begin with, the author's conclusion bases on a questionable deduction that famous instructors' reputation could guarantee the better quality education. Without the corresponding equipments and human resource (HR) management, it is hard to any university to become the best one even if it has the best faculty. Without computers, students never know how to use it even if their computer instructor is renowned. In addition, evaluating instructors' reputation primarily by the extensive research and publishing record, the standard of the argument is too simply and ambiguous. And only certain faculty members can meet the standard, how about the other faculty members in UC? We have good reasons to doubt the whole reputation and level of UC instructors.

Moreover, the author fail to convince us that international famous field leader will help students gain the better education. The example quoted in the argument just demonstrates one potential disadvantage—field leaders perhaps spend too much time and energy on international invitational activities. Another disadvantage is field leader may devote into research work, not the teaching. Either of them will short the time on teaching, which harmful to students education possibly.

Further more, the argument points out two recent graduates of physics department have gone on to become candidates for the Nobel Prize. However, it does not tell us how about other departments in UC. Perhaps there is none in other department. At the same time, there is no information provided by author the physics department conditions of other university. It is possible that some universities have more candidates than UC, not only in physics department but also in other departments.

In addition, the author omits some specific condition about 75 percent employment ratio. Whether those students satisfied with the job or not? How many international or national companies and how many small one are among companies’ that they work for? How about the employment ratio of other universities? Without the specific comparison, it is hard or impossible to regard UC as one of best universities.

Last but not least, the author fails to take into account other factors that influence the last choice, such as the tuition, the location, the lab, the surrounding and environment and the scholarship. Every aspect is the same important as the instructors’ reputation.

To sum up, based on what discussed and analyzed above, it is clearly that the argument is invalid and misleading, and the conclusion reached in the argument is too presumptuous to be accepted. In order to make the conclusion more convincing, the author should gather more scientific and specific data, and provide more efficiency and receivable evidence to support the conclusion.

[ Last edited by Archer1123 on 2005-12-10 at 22:47 ]

yangxingUID: 2112368

不要着急阿,网上回来上传:):):)

yangxingUID: 2112368

In the argument, the author claims that University Claria (UC) is one of the best choices for those who seek a quality education. That statement is unfounded and cannot be accepted under the examination and scrutiny. Though the author cites examples to substantiate the conclusion. At the first glance, the argument seems plausible and reasonable, on the second thought; however, as a matter of fact it is not persuasive as it stands.

To begin with, the author's conclusion bases on a questionable deduction that famous instructors' reputation could guarantee the better quality education. Without the corresponding equipments and human resource (HR) management, it is hard to any university to become the best one even if it has the best faculty. Without computers, students never know how to use it even if their computer instructor is renowned. In addition, evaluating instructors' reputation primarily by the extensive research and publishing record, the standard of the argument is too simply and ambiguous. And only certain faculty members can meet the standard, how about the other faculty members in UC? We have good reasons to doubt the whole reputation and level of UC instructors.

Moreover, the author fails to convince us that international famous field leader will help students gain the better education. The example quoted in the argument just demonstrates one potential disadvantage—field leaders perhaps spend too much time and energy on international invitational activities. Another disadvantage is field leader may devote into research work, not the teaching. Either of them will short the time onin teaching, which harmful to students education possibly.

Further more, the argument points out two percent graduates of physics department have gone on to become candidates for the Nobel Prize. However, it does not tell us how about other departments in UC. Perhaps there is none in other department. At the same time, there is no information provided by author the physics department conditions of other university. It is possible that some universities have more candidates than UC, not only in physics department but also in other departments.

In addition, the author omits some specific condition about 75 percent employment ratio. Whether those students satisfied with the job or not?How many international or national companies transnatinal or domestic companies and how many small one are among companies’ that they work for? How about the employment ratio of other universities? Without the specific comparison, it is hard or impossible to regard UC as one of best universities.

Last but not least, the author fails to take into account other factors that influence the last choice, such as the tuition, the location, the lab, the surrounding and environment and the scholarship. Every aspect is the same important as the instructors’ reputation.

To sum up, based on what discussed and analyzed above, it is clearly that the argument is invalid and misleading, and the conclusion reached in the argument is too presumptuous to be accepted. In order to make the conclusion more convincing, the author should gather more scientific and specific data, and provide more efficiency and receivable evidence to support the conclusion.
那个人该的太好了，我本来也该你那个issue 和这篇文章来这，但是太自卑了，怕耽误你，我已经PM他了，让他最好再来给你改这个，自卑中...