argument140【加州阳光】第8次作业 你拍一！我拍一！

benniUID: 2166321

------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.'


------提纲------

1、学生多未必受欢迎，可能必修
2、挣钱多那也才两年，都交了17年了，前十五年如何？多挣了多少？
3、未必适合管理


------正文------

In the report of the Committee at Elm City University, the speaker recommends that Professor Thomas receive a $10,000 raise and a promotion to Department Chairperson. To support this recommendation, the author cites the following facts: (1) Professor Thomas' classes are among the largest at the university; (2) the money she has brought to the university has exceeded her salary in last two years. Close scrutiny of the evidence, however, reveals that it lends little credence to the recommendation.

To begin with, the speaker attempts to establish a causal connection between two facts that Professor Thomas' classes are among the largest ones and Professor Thomas is popular among students. However, the argument is based on an oversimplified analysis of the reason of “the large class” and hence the relationship is doubtful. In fact, it is equally possible that although students do not prefer Professor Thomas' teaching style, her classes are all the compulsory curriculums and she is the only one professor who teaches those curriculums, which render students have to choose her classes. Without ruling put other possibilities, the arguer fails to demonstrate the popularity of Professor Thomas.

In the second place, the speaker obviously commits the fallacy of "hasty generalization." Although Professor Thomas has brought the university more money than her salary in last two years, she has worked at Elm City University for seventeen years. As a result, two years is not a period sufficient long so as to accurately reveal her research ability. Moreover, we are not informed how much money she has brought to the university. Even if she has the ability to make more profit than the university feedback, it does not follow that the university should raise her salary to 60,000. Perhaps a $5,000 raise is more reasonable.

Finally, the speaker also commits the fallacy of "oversimplification". Even assuming that Professor Thomas is popular among students and has excellent research ability, query whether she is appropriate for the position—Department Chairperson. Actually, there are several factors contributed to be a good Department Chairperson other than teaching and research abilities, such as ability of administration and communication. It is entirely possible that she does not proficient at and even is not interested in being a leader of a Department and if so, the promotion is illogical and not necessary.

In conclusion, the recommendation rests on some suspicious assumptions that make it unconvincing as it stands. To better support the recommendation, the author should provide the evidence--perhaps by the way of poll among students--that students indeed prefer Professor Thomas' teaching style. To better assess the recommendation, I would need to know the administration ability of Professor Thomas and the specific data about the money that she has brought to Elm City University.