Argument140 第五次作业

Anny.Y.WangUID: 2178596

根据freud的建议，我这回举了反例， 希望有改进。
谢谢大家哦。

Argument 140
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’ demonstrates 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. ”

攻击点：1. 班级是最大的不能说明他的受欢迎程度， 和教学能力。
                2. 引进资金不能说明他的科研能力。
                3. 加薪提升不能说明他一定会留在学校不跳槽。


In this argument, the speaker argues that Professor Thomas will leave Elm City University for another without a $10,000 raise and a promotion to Department Chairperson. To justify his report, he claims that Professor Thomas’s class is popular with students because her class is the largest at the university. In addition, he also cites that the fund, which she has brought to the university research grants has exceeded her salary last two years as an example. At first glance, the argument appears some reasonable, but further reflection reveals it suffered from at least three logic flaws.

First of all, the speaker overlooks the possibilities that there is only one class, which students have to attend in Elm City University and Professor Thomas is just the teacher in charge of the class. So the speaker cannot come to the conclusion that she is popular among students. Even if she is popular among students, perhaps because of her humors or she never criticize students who are late or absent for classes, the speaker cannot link these to her teaching ability.

Secondly, Professor Thomas has worked as a professor of botany for 17 years, however, she brought funds which exceed her wages to the university only last two years. We can suppose that the research , which she has been devoting to is to useless to attract research money, even the only two research grants were given by a friend of hers. What is worse, these two grants are used on another professor’s research instead of hers. In short, the speaker cannot conclude that she has the research ability.

Thirdly, suppose Professor Thomas really has the teaching and research abilities, she has her own choices under certain circumstances. On one hand, she will stay in Elm City University whether given the rise and promotion or not, because only Elm City University has the course which she is teaching now. On the other hand, she will leave for another college, although she is given the rise and promotion for the reason that another university promise to give her higher rise and the vice president’s position of that school. Without accounting for these differences, the speaker cannot assume that Professor Thomas will sure stay in Elm University if given the rise and promotion.

In conclusion, the argument actually has several flaws as discussed above, and is not convincing as it stands. To heaven the argument the speaker should have to provide evidence that she actually has teaching and research abilities, and demonstrates that she can bring more research funds in the future, and further proves that if Elm City University gives her a 10,000 rise and promotion, Professor Thomas will not leave it for another one.

[ 本帖最后由 staralways 于 2006-2-6 23:19 编辑 ]

forevercocoUID: 149574

Argument140 第五次作业 Anny

根据freud的建议，我这回举了反例， 希望有改进。
谢谢大家哦。

Argument 140
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’ demonstrates 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. ”

攻击点：1. 班级是最大的不能说明他的受欢迎程度， 和教学能力。
                2. 引进资金不能说明他的科研能力。
                3. 加薪提升不能说明他一定会留在学校不跳槽。


In this argument, the speaker argues that Professor Thomas will leave Elm City University for another without a $10,000 raise and a promotion to Department Chairperson. To justify his report, he claims that Professor Thomas’s class is popular with students because her class is the largest at the university. In addition, he also cites that the fund, which she has brought to the university research grants has exceeded her salary last two years as an example. At first glance, the argument appears some reasonable, but further reflection reveals it suffered from at least three logic flaws.
[我觉得这篇文章最主要的逻辑错误，是在于根据class和近2年的research情况，并不能说明$10000的加薪和升职是合理的。你的第一句说的是写的是如果没有升职加薪T可能会离开学校，感觉写的偏了。
Argument要求我们找到原文的逻辑漏洞，也就是原文作者认为合理但实则不合理的地方。作者认为，从他所给出的evidence，可以得到他所提出的conclusion, 而我们主要应该分析从evidence-----conclusion的逻辑错误。至少，证明evidence不是conclusion的充分条件。]

First of all, the speaker overlooks the possibilities that there is only one class, which students have to attend in Elm City University and Professor Thomas is just the teacher in charge of the class.[only one class有些绝对了，作者也只是说Her classes are among the largest at the university，可以说T所教授的是很多学生必修的公共课，因此自然会比较popular,这样从逻辑上显得严谨一点] So the speaker cannot come to the conclusion that she is popular among students. Even if she is popular among students, perhaps because of her humors or she never criticize[criticizes] students who are late or absent for classes, the speaker cannot link these to her teaching ability.

Secondly, Professor Thomas has worked as a professor of botany for 17 years, however, she brought funds which exceed her wages to the university only last two years.[这段的TS就很好] We can suppose that the research , which she has been devoting to is to[too] useless to attract research money, even the only two research grants were given by a friend of hers. [这个和B1是一样的错误，太绝对了，我觉得even the only two research grants were given by a friend of hers.已经属于不合理猜测的范畴了，完全可以根据TS，写：也许她前几年的研究情况并不理想，但是文中没有清楚说明…类似于这样的]What is worse, these two grants[two grants从何而来？] are used on[used on好像不对] another professor’s research instead of hers. In short, the speaker cannot conclude that she has the research ability.[结论the speaker cannot conclude that she has the research ability.同样太绝对了，T显然是有一定的research ability的，要不然也不会为学校带来收益，但是她所带来收益是否值得每年10000的加薪和升职，这才是我们要论述的问题。]

Thirdly, suppose Professor Thomas really has the teaching and research abilities, she has her own choices under certain circumstances. On one hand, she will stay in Elm City University whether given the rise and promotion or not, because only Elm City University has the course which she is teaching now. [nonono，botany肯定是所有的综合性大学都有的课程]On the other hand, she will leave for another college, although she is given the rise and promotion for the reason that another university promise to give her higher rise and the vice president’s position of that school. Without accounting for these differences,[不该用differences, possibility比较合适吧] the speaker cannot assume that Professor Thomas will sure stay in Elm University if given the rise and promotion.

In conclusion, the argument actually has several flaws as discussed above, and is not convincing as it stands. To heaven the argument the speaker should have to provide evidence that she actually has teaching and research abilities, and demonstrates that she can bring more research funds in the future, and further proves that if Elm City University gives her a 10,000 rise and promotion, Professor Thomas will not leave it for another one.

[俺不厚道一下，这篇argument不是很成功。
1.结构：第一段对材料逻辑错误的分析有些偏了，没有抓住主要的问题。提纲的B1,B2,B3都没有问题，但是没有充分的论证出来。
2.论证：在批驳作者fallacy的同时，又陷入了自己的错误之中，所给出更多是guesswork而非possibility. 例如对其教学能力和研究能力的质疑。我认为，主要还是因为没有抓住主要的逻辑错误，所以重心才有所偏移。用反例其实是一种很好的论证方法，但是反例更应该要reasonable
3.语言：有些中式，而且表达方式重复的比较多，这些稍微注意一下就可以了，毕竟最重要的还是文章的内容。
加油吧。。。。Anny~~~]

Anny.Y.WangUID: 2178596

谢谢COCO诚恳的建议，我会再接再厉的，一起加油哦！

非常感谢你！！