Argument140 欢迎来拍，留链必回

kexinyupiaoUID: 2250204

拼写及部分语法错误已修改，未计时

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: 479          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2007-2-23

In the report presented above, the author from the Committee on Faculty Promotions and Salaries at Elm City University (ECU) recommends to raise the salary of professor Thomas who is considered to be preeminent and of great ability, and gives she a promotion to Department Chairperson for fear that Professor Thomas may leave ECU. To support the recommendation, the author states several facts with which to demonstrate the ability and value of Professor Thomas. However, close scrutiny of the argument and the author's line of reasoning reveals that the argument in fact suffers from several logical fallacies as it stands.

To begin with, the author assumes that Professor Thomas is popular and reveives high remarks among students. However, the mere fact the author mentioned is that her classes are on of the largest at the university. Without further evidence and information on the fact, it is entirely possible that the courses taught by Professor Thomas are required by the university. Or perhaps, Professor Thomas tends to give high scores to each student taking her classes. Without accounting for these and other alternative explanations, the author cannot convince me that Professor Thomas is popular among students.

Secondly, the author cites the fact that Professor Thomas has brought to the university more money that her salary in each of the last two years to substantiate the assumption that Professor Thomas is preeminent and of prominent ability. However, the author fails to make the evidence sound enough to support the assumption. As common sense informs me, that there are usually more than one person who are engaged in a research program. If this is the case, it is very likely that the money in research grants was not attribute to Professor Thomas but someone else. So, based on the evidence, the author fails to make the argument sound enough to take seriously.

Last but not least, the author assumes that Professor Thomas has the ability to excel in the position of Department Chairperson, while fails to demonstrate it in the argument. Even if Professor Thomas can impart knowledge well, it does not necessary means that she is capable to handle the affairs of the department. Besides, the author asserts without evidence that without higher salary and the position, Professor Thomas will leave ECU. It is possible that Professor Thomas is fond of and satisfied with the work and research at ECU.

To sum up, the argument is indefensible, at least based on the given argument. To make the recommendation sound enough to be taken seriously, the author need to provide more convincing evidence that Professor Thomas is preeminent enough and of the very ability to not only excel in the research work but also in the position of Department Chairperson. To better assess the argument, it would be useful to know whether Professor Thomas is intending to leave ECU for another college.