Argument140 【天下无G askme习作】第16次作业 这么多攻击点，应接不暇

askmeUID: 2264776

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: 637          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2007-2-21


Giving some facts and analysis, the argument that Elm City University (ECU) should give Professor Thomas a $10,000 raise and a promotion seems logical. However, a careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless the conclusion is.

To begin with, the arguer falsely equates the number of Thomas' students with the popularity of Thomas. While it is true that more students attend Thomas' classes are representative to reflect her ability of teaching in some sense, yet, it is also possible that other factors will  contribute to  this phenomenon. Perhaps, there is certain lesson that only Thomas is able to teach, so that all students have to attend her class, no matter how boring and unpopular this lesson is. If so, the size of the classes cannot represent the popularity of Thomas among students. In short, without ruling out this possibility, the arguer's conclusion is unconvincing.

Furthermore, even if Thomas has brought much money to the university in research grants, it does not follow that she has excellent research abilities. As common sense and experience tells us that a variety of factors, such as the importance of her research, might also play important roles. It is highly possible that her research relates to military purpose so that the government put much stress on it, no matter how much it will cost. If so, it is natural for Thomas to bring much money. What's more, if Thomas spends too much time in seeking for research grants, it will reduce her time in research, which will overshadow her research ability. In a word, any of these scenarios, if true, would serve to undermine the conclusion that Thomas has good research ability.

In addition, the arguer infer that Thomas will continue to bring much money to research on the assumption that after two years, patrons are still interested in Thomas' research. However, this is not the case, nor does the arguer provide any evidence to substantiate this assumption. It is equally possible that Thomas majors in biology, which was popular during the past two years. However, from now on, information technology begins to thrive, so few people would like to invest in Thomas' research. If so, she will not continue to get much money any more. In all, lacking such evidence, the arguer's recommendation is premature at best.

Next, assuming that Thomas indeed has popularity among students and good research ability, the arguer fails to provide any evidence that she is able to occupy Department Chairperson. However, this is not necessarily the case. As we know, the research ability is quite different from management ability. Perhaps, Thomas is very shy and taciturn; this characteristic might be helpful to research because it can keep off lots of disturbing. However, as Department Chairperson, people who have such characteristics will fails to communicate with others smoothly. If so, it will impede the development of the department. Without considering this possibility, the arguer cannot confidently draw any firm conclusion.

What's more, the arguer falsely depends on the gratuitous assumption that Thomas will leave the university. However, the arguer provides no evidence to justify this assumption. It is possible that nowhere Thomas feels more comfortable than in ECU. If so, she will never leave even if other universities would like to offer more salary. In addition, if Thomas is an inept professor, or if the professors majoring in the same field as Thomas are over-supplied, then no other university would like to take her. Thus, the conclusion is doubtable.

To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited here lends no strong support to what the arguer maintains. To strengthen this argument, the arguer should provide more evidence regarding the research ability and popularity. To better evaluate this argument, we need more information about her leave.

lindorUID: 2290025

有一个问题就是Thomas是botany的professor，但是你在In addition的那一段，把她改成biology的了。 另外，攻击的逻辑错误很全，coverage达到了。
只是有的假设有点别扭，我不确定是不是军方的项目会给大学导师做，或者美国的军方项目也是乱砸钱的。还有就是botany这两年很红，将来可能不红的原因，为什么是information technology发展了，botany就衰落了，这两个的investors 是shared？
你的语言真是不错。嗯