140The 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.'
The author makes a rash suggestion that Professor Thomas should receive a salary raise and a promotion thanks to her demonstrated teaching and research abilities. To solidify this recommendation, the author provides us the fact that the professor’s classes are among the largest in the university and also that the professor’s research grants has surpassed her salary in the last two years respectively. However, after a careful investigation and consideration, we will find out that several fallacies potentially lie in this suggestion.
One of the major flaws is that the arguer assumes the Professor Thomas is surely popular among the students for her classes are always packed with students. Nonetheless there could be other factors contributing the classes’ prevalence. Firstly, it is highly possible that the classes of Professor Thomas are compulsory. That is to say, students are required to take part in those classes. Secondly, another potential reason why the professor’s classes are large might be that students are easy to receive the academic credit points by attending those lessons. So the large classes of the professor could not lead to the conclusion that she is popular among students.
Another issue of the salient weaknesses in this argument is that just the last two years’ research grants does not lend strong support to the arguer’s conclusion. No information about the professor’s future research grants is mentioned. It is most likely that Professor Thomas has received the research funds only in the last two years and might acquire little grants in the future. Without such essential evidence, we could hardly draw the conclusion that the professor has a demonstrated research capability.
The third fallacy the arguer commits lies in the ungrounded fear that if she does not receive the salary raise and the promotion, the professor might leave Elm City University. The arguer provides neither us nor the evidence that the professor is going to leave the university neither the information that other colleges offer a better salary to employ Professor Thomas. Lacking of these factors the fear is open to doubt.
Furthermore, the arguer’s recommendation that the Professor Thomas should be promoted to the Department Chairperson is unfairly put forward and need more subtle consideration from other aspects. In spite of teaching and research abilities, a Department Chairperson requires such other faculties as leading and administrating capabilities. Additionally the promotion to Department Chairperson will unquestionably increase the work of the professor and might have a negative impact on the teaching work to some extent.
In the final analysis, this argument suffers several flaws and the arguer’s suggestion need a further consideration. To make the recommendation more convincing, more information and evidence about the teaching and research abilities should be presented.
谢谢大家作者: leedgen 时间: 2005-12-20 16:52:56
呜呜呜，谁帮我看看涅作者: 智恩 时间: 2005-12-20 19:59:58
The author makes a rash suggestion that Professor Thomas should receive a salary raise and a promotion thanks to her demonstrated teaching and research abilities. To solidify this recommendation, the author provides us the fact that the professor’s classes are among the largest in the university and also that the professor’s research grants has surpassed her salary in the last two years respectively. However, after a careful investigation and consideration, we will find out that several fallacies potentially lie in this suggestion.
One of the major flaws is that the arguer assumes the Professor Thomas is surely popular among the students for her classes are always packed with students. Nonetheless there could be other factors contributing the classes’ prevalence. Firstly, it is highly possible that the classes of Professor Thomas are compulsory. That is to say, students are required to take part in those classes. Secondly, another potential reason why the professor’s classes are large might be that students are easy to receive the academic credit points by attending those lessons. So the large classes of the professor could not lead to the conclusion that she is popular among students.
Another issue of the salient weaknesses in this argument is that just the last two years’ research grants does not lend strong support to the arguer’s conclusion. No information about the professor’s future research grants is mentioned. It is most likely that Professor Thomas has received the research funds only in the last two years and might acquire little grants in the future. Without such essential evidence, we could hardly draw the conclusion that the professor has a demonstrated research capability.
The third fallacy the arguer commits lies in the ungrounded fear that if she does not receive the salary raise and the promotion, the professor might leave Elm City University. The arguer provides neither us nor the evidence that the professor is going to leave the university neither the information that other colleges offer a better salary to employ Professor Thomas. Lacking of these factors the fear is open to doubt.
Furthermore, the arguer’s recommendation that the Professor Thomas should be promoted to the Department Chairperson is unfairly put forward and need more subtle consideration from other aspects. In spite of teaching and research abilities, a Department Chairperson requires such other faculties as leading and administrating capabilities. Additionally the promotion to Department Chairperson will unquestionably increase the work of the professor and might have a negative impact on the teaching work to some extent.
In the final analysis, this argument suffers several flaws and the arguer’s suggestion need a further consideration. To make the recommendation more convincing, more information and evidence about the teaching and research abilities should be presented.最后的关于如何使我们相信的内容我认为应该写得再详细一点，总的还是不错，其实每次你得文章都很难找出句子或词汇的毛病，继续练下去，你一定会得到你想要的分数的。作者: jingjingtous 时间: 2005-12-21 00:01:58
The author makes a rash suggestion that Professor Thomas should receive a salary raise and a promotion thanks to(好词) her demonstrated teaching and research abilities. To solidify this recommendation, the author provides us(cites) the fact that the professor’s(her) classes are among the largest in the university and also that the professor’s research grants has surpassed(好词) her salary in the last two years respectively(好）. However, after a careful investigation and consideration, we will find（found） out that several fallacies potentially lie in this suggestion.
One of the major flaws is that the arguer assumes the Professor Thomas is surely popular among the students for her classes are always packed with students. Nonetheless there could be other factors contributing to the classes’ prevalence. Firstly, it is highly possible that the classes of Professor Thomas are compulsory. That is to say, students are required to take part in those classes. Secondly, another potential reason why the professor’s classes are large might be that students are easy to receive(gain?) the academic credit points by attending those lessons. So the large classes of the professor could not lead to the conclusion that she is popular among students.
Another issue of the salient weaknesses(好词） in this argument is that just the last two years’ research grants does not lend strong support to support the arguer’s conclusion. No information about the professor’s future research grants is mentioned. It is most likely that Professor Thomas has received the research funds only in the last two years and might acquire little grants in the future. Without such essential evidence, we could hardly draw the conclusion that the professor has a demonstrated research capability.
The third fallacy the arguer commits lies in the ungrounded fear that if she does not receive the salary raise and the promotion, the professor might leave Elm City University. The arguer provides neither us nor the evidence这句好像不对，us 和 the evidence不能并列吧？ that the professor is going to leave the university neither the information that other colleges offer a better salary to employ Professor Thomas.是不是这样:THe arguer providers us neither the evidence....not the information....） Lacking of these factors the fear is open to doubt.
Furthermore, the arguer’s recommendation that the Professor Thomas should be promoted to the Department Chairperson is unfairly put forward and need more subtle好词 consideration from other aspects. In spite of teaching and research abilities, a Department Chairperson（具体职位前面不能用定冠词） requires such other去掉 faculties as（to have） leading and administrating capabilities. Additionally the promotion to Department Chairperson will unquestionably increase the work（burden） of the professor and might have a negative impact on the teaching work to some extent.(最后两句的论证是说提升到此职位后可能带来的不利后果，是否可以把这段论证放到其它人可能比她更适合这个职位的方面呢？）
In the final analysis, this argument suffers several flaws and the arguer’s suggestion need a further consideration. To make the recommendation more convincing, more information and evidence去掉 about the professor's teaching and research abilities should be presented.结尾最好可以提一下倒数第二段批驳的要点。
这篇文章写的很好，驳斥很有力度，继续加油哦
因为没有看到互改顺序，以为我要改小花的，所以实在抱歉，i am so sorry作者: @amy@ 时间: 2005-12-21 00:14:03