Argument140【SWEETBOX小组】第二次作业 by bluerbird

bluerbirdUID: 2141732

In this report, the arguer recommends that salary raise and promotion should be granted to Thomas, a professor of botany. To support his recommendation, the arguer presents the following facts to support: 1.Professor Thomas’s classes are among the largest at the university. 2. Professor Thomas collected research grants in the last two years, the amount of which exceeded her salary. A close scrutiny of these facts, however, reveals that none of them lend credible support to the recommendation.
First, the reasoning that Professor Thomas is popular among students based on the fact that her classes are among the largest at the university is doubtful. The arguer doesn’t provide any information about the courses professor Thomas teaches. Maybe it is because Professor Thomas teaches some basic courses that so many students attend in. It is also possible that other botany professors are engaged in important research work. Without ruling out other possibilities, the arguer can’t convince me that Professor Thomas is a welcome teacher and her teaching ability is excellent.
Second, the assumption that professor Thomas has a excellent research ability based on the amount of research grants she attracted in the last two years is not convincing. The arguer doesn’t provide any information about the research grants Professor Thomas collected 2 years ago, nor about the research grants other botany professor attracted in recent years. It is possible that Professor Thomas didn’t get any research grants 2 years before. In contrary, his colleagues got research grant in several consistent years and each grant surpassed hers a lot. Moreover, the arguer doesn’t tell any information about the research project Professor Thomas is involved in, which also can demonstrate her research ability.
The arguer oversimplifies the issue of promoting Professor Thomas to the department chairperson. A qualified department chairperson should present the highest level of teaching and researching ability of the department. Besides, a good communication skill is also necessary to ensure the effective operation of the department. The information the arguer presents can not prove Professor Thomas excellent teaching and researching ability, let alone the best of the botany department. The arguer refers nothing to demonstrate Professor Thomas communication ability. If Professor Thomas receives a promotion and salary raise in this condition, chances are some professors, who think it is not just deserts, will leave Elm City University for other better university.
In conclusion, the reporter’s argument is not persuasive. To bolster it must provide clearer evidence to show that Professor Thomas teaching and research ability is among the best. Moreover, the reporter should also provide us information about professor Thomas communication skill to prove she is a superior candidate for department chairperson.
欢迎指教！