argument140『五一互助小组』第二次作业 by 涟漪

marolerUID: 2337404

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 TChairperson; without such a raise and promotion, we fear that Professor Thomas will leave Elm City University for another college."

提出Professor Thomas提薪和升职的原因是：
1 她所教授的课程是全学校最大的
2 她给学校带来的研究资金超过了她在过去两年的收入
3考虑到如果不给她提薪和升职的话，她很有可能去其他的学校教课
In the report, the committee claims that Pofesser Thomas deserves for the $10,000 raise and promotion in Elm City University on the basis of her teaching and research abilities. To bolster the acommendation, the author points out that her classes are the one of the largest and in each of the last two years the money she has brought to the universty has exceeded her salary. Also, the author mentions the probability that Pofesser Thomas will leave for another college without such a raise and promotion. However, this argument contains several logical flaws, which render it unconvincing.
A threshold problem with the argument involves the relationship between the fact of teaching one of the largest classes and the popularity among students. The author supplies no clear evidence to support this assumption.Even if her classes are popular in college, it is entirely possible that curriculums she teaches are more straightforward than other ones, or that the students in her classes would easily pass through the exams. Without considering and ruling out such explanation, the author cannot justifiably make the conclusion.
Similarly,the mere fact that the research grants she has brought to the university have go beyond her salary during the past two years acompletes nothing towards her ability on the research. Perhaps the research grants are mainly attributed to other colleagues in the same research group. Perhaps actually the money is already planed to disttibute to the university in past two years ,as a part of the educational reformation. Accordingly, careful examination of the scant evidence reveals that it lends unpersuasible support to the author’s argument.
In the report, the author indicates that if the university do not offer the raise and promotion,Professer Thomas would leave for another college which affords better conditions both raise and promotion. It is unwarranted to make such conclusion.First, the author proves no evidence that any other college are willing to urge Professer Thomas come to teach in their classes. Second,there is no mentioned inquiry on the desire that she expects to leave the Elm City University for another college.Besides,if she have determined to leave,I believe that it is helpless and effectless to offer only raise and promotion.
In sum, the recommendation about the raise and promotion for Professor Thomas is not well supported. To justify the claim, the auhor must supply more detail evidence that her curriculums themselves attract the students and then is popular among then, and that the money in the research grands which is greatly increased is mainly put down to Prefessor Thomas. To better evalue the claim, we also need to know more information about her furtue plan on the job, the contribution for the university and research grants for the last seventeen years, and the potential possibilty of other college accept Professer Thomas.