argument140 METTLE小组第三次作业

amyzhaoUID: 2250810

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."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The arguer proposes that Professor Thomas should receive a $10,000 raise and a promotion to Department Chairperson. But in this report, he fails to provide convincing evidence to support his recommendation and also makes some unwarranted assumption.

First of all, the deduction that Professor Thomas’ teaching ability is excellent is just based on a series of unconvincing ratiocination. For one thing, that her classes are among the largest at the university can not be treated as evidence to illustrate her popularity. Maybe as a result of lacking teachers of botany, the university has to arrange many students to have class together. For another, though she is popular among students, there is also absent evidence to demonstrate her teaching ability. Because lacking the criteria, which used by students when they evaluate teachers, the conclusion about Professor Thomas’ teaching ability is up to doubt.

Secondly, the fact that Professor Thomas brought more money to the university in research grants than her salary in each of the last two years proves little about her research ability. Compared with other professors, perhaps her money in research grants is just at a common level or even lower. Moreover, the arguer only mentions granted money in the last two years. So we can not exclude the possibilities that the amount of granted money in other years is less than the one in the last two years. Consequently, without comparison and information about the granted money in other years, the judgment about Professor Thomas’ research ability is doubtful.

Thirdly, even if I were to concede that Professor Thomas truly has a perfect teaching and research abilities, the casual relationship between such abilities and improving in salary and position is untenable. On the one hand, without information about the salary of other professors who have similar abilities as Professor Thomas, we may not judge whether there is any necessity to give her a raise. Perhaps, her salary is already high enough when compared with normal level. On the other, other factors may also affect the promotion, such as whether Professor Thomas can fulfill other requirements for a Department Chairperson, other competitors’ abilities and so on. Accordingly, the proposal can not be accepted for the untenable causal relationship.

Finally, the arguer unfairly assumes that Professor Thomas will leave the university for another one if not being given a raise in salary and promotion. However, the assumption just based on an unwarranted precondition that Professor Thomas is not content with current salary and position, and that other schools can offer her more than Elm City University. Unfortunately, little evidence proves that it is the case. Thus, we are unable to accept the arguer’s ungrounded assumption

In conclusion, the recommendation that Professor Thomas should receive a $10,000 raise and a promotion to Department Chairperson is not well supported. To convince us, the arguer should provide more detail information about Professor Thomas’ abilities and also needs to supply sufficient evidence to strengthen his assumption.

[ 本帖最后由 amyzhao 于 2007-6-17 08:01 编辑 ]

holacolaUID: 2313791

The arguer proposes that Professor Thomas should receive a $10,000 raise and a promotion to Department Chairperson. But in this report, he fails to provide convincing evidence to support his recommendation and also makes some unwarranted assumption.

First of all, the deduction that Professor Thomas’ teaching ability is excellent [文章里没说吧。] is just based on a series of unconvincing ratiocination. For one thing, that her classes are among the largest at the university can not be treated as evidence to illustrate her popularity. Maybe as a result of lacking teachers of botany, the university has to arrange many students to have class together. For another, though she is popular among students, there is also absent evidence to demonstrate her teaching ability. Because (of) lacking [前面刚刚出现过，考虑换个词unclear?] the criteria, which used by students when they evaluate teachers, the conclusion about Professor Thomas’ teaching ability is up to [胜任，从事于？这个词我不知道用得对不对。] doubt.

Secondly, the fact that Professor Thomas brought more money to the university in research grants than her salary in each of the last two years proves little about her research ability. Compared with other professors, perhaps her money in research grants is just at a common level or even lower. Moreover, the arguer only mentions granted money in the last two years. So we can not exclude the possibilities that the amount of granted money in other years is less than the one in the last two years[可以省略]. Consequently, without comparison and information about the granted money in other years, the judgment about Professor Thomas’ research ability is doubtful.

Thirdly, even if I were to concede that Professor Thomas truly has a perfect teaching and research abilities, the casual relationship between such abilities and improving in salary and position is untenable. On the one hand, without information about the salary of other professors who have similar abilities as Professor Thomas, we may not judge whether there is any necessity to give her a raise. Perhaps, her salary is already high enough when compared with normal level. On the other, other factors may also affect the promotion, such as whether Professor Thomas can fulfill other requirements for a Department Chairperson, other competitors’ abilities and so on. Accordingly, the proposal can not be accepted for the untenable causal relationship.

Finally, the arguer unfairly assumes that Professor Thomas will leave the university for[to?] another one if not being given a raise in salary and promotion. However, the assumption just based on an unwarranted precondition that Professor Thomas is not content with current salary and position, and that other schools can offer her more than Elm City University. Unfortunately, little evidence proves that it is the case. Thus, we are unable to accept the arguer’s ungrounded assumption

In conclusion, the recommendation that Professor Thomas should receive a $10,000 raise and a promotion to Department Chairperson is not well supported. To convince us, the arguer should provide more detail information about Professor Thomas’ abilities and also needs to supply sufficient evidence to strengthen his assumption.


我决对不是偷懒，看了好几遍，用词和行文不错。总体感觉我觉得挺好。
对了，我在我的argu后边写了几句，你看看，然后讨论讨论？？

[ 本帖最后由 holacola 于 2007-6-17 11:06 编辑 ]