Argument140【加州阳光】第八次作业★from 叶子★

leaf99UID: 2174003

TOPIC: ARGUMENT140 - 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."
WORDS: 487          TIME: 0:45:00          DATE: 2006-7-9

In this argument, the author recommends Professor Thomas to receive a salary raise and a promotion to Department Chairperson based on her teaching and research experience. To justify his recommendation, he cites the big classes she taught and the large amount of research grant she gets over the last two years. However, close scrutiny of each supporting point reveals that it leads little credible support to the author's assertion.
A threshold problem involves associating Professor Thomas's large classes to her popularity among students.  There is no sufficient evidence demonstrating her popularity since the author provides no information concerning students’ evaluation of the classes. It is very likely that all the students are required to take the professor's compulsory courses despite her mediocre teaching ability. Unless the author gives other evidence supporting her popularity besides the class scale, the argument will be far from persuasive.
Another problem this argument suffers from lies in demonstrating her research ability by the amount of research grant she receives. Though Prof. Thomas's research grant has exceeded her salary over the last two years, there is no indication that her research ability surpasses all of the other faculties who might have brought about far more money to the university in research grants. Besides, it is entirely possible that she has yielded no profound research results in her academic career with the given fund. Lacking detailed evidence concerning her research results and research ability, the argument will not succeed in convincing the school Committee.
Even if Professor Thomas's teaching and research abilities are out of question, she shows no willingness or potential to be Department Chairperson. Perhaps she is so devoted to her academic research that administrative work of a chairperson fails to attract her. It is also likely that even if she is willing to work as a Chairperson, she has no time doing it due to the burdensome academic research. Additionally, since administrative work is vastly different from academic research or teaching, her impressive performance in teaching and research does not guarantee her success in administration.  
A final problem that weakens this argument is the author's prediction of Prof. Thomas's leave for another college. It is likely that she will not leave due to such reasons as the familiar working environment, sound research equipment, cooperative colleagues as well as excellent students in Elm City University while the salary raise and promotion do not really interest her. The author hastly assumes that she care much about money and fame, neglecting other essential factors contributing to her stay in Elm City Univerisyt.
In conclusion, the author does not succeed in providing compelling reasons for his recommendation. To strengthen his argument, the author would have to demonstrate Professor Thomas's teaching and research abilities. Moreover, the author must guarantee her willingness and potential to handle the administrative work of a Department Chairperson. Only with more convincing evidence could this argument become more than an emotional appeal.