argument221 【METTLE小组】第五次作业 by 一米八四

一米八四UID: 2317911

221The following appeared in the editorial section of a student newspaper.

"In a recent survey, most students who were studying beginning Russian gave higher course-evaluation ratings to classes taught by non-native Russian speakers than to classes taught by native Russian speakers. The reason that the non-native speakers were better teachers of Russian is easy to see: the non-native speakers learned Russian later in life themselves, and so they have a better understanding of how the language can be taught effectively. Therefore, in order to improve instruction for all languages and also save money, our university should hire non-native speakers as language instructors instead of trying to find and recruit native speakers."

在一次最近的调查中，学习初级俄语的学生给予非俄国教师所教的课的评价要高于给予俄国教师所教的课。非俄国人作为俄语教师更加优秀的原因是显而易见的：非俄国人在长大以后自己学习俄语，因此他们对于这种语言如何教授将更加有效有着更深刻的理解。因此，为提高所有语言课程的质量并节省开支，我们大学应该雇佣非本国人来担任语言教师而不是试图寻找和雇佣本国人。


提纲
1 调查有为问题，学生的能力，学生的数量。
2 没有证据能说明非母语的比母语的在教学上有更深刻的理解，也许俄国人是一个新老师没经验，而非母语的是个经验丰富的老师。也许学校无法吸引优秀的俄国老师。
3 节省开支和请不清外国人没必然联系。优秀的非母语教师不一定就比普通的母语教师薪水低，调查的课程，初级是这种情况，中高级就不一定了。

题目：ARGUMENT221 - The following appeared in the editorial section of a student newspaper.

"In a recent survey, most students who were studying beginning Russian gave higher course-evaluation ratings to classes taught by non-native Russian speakers than to classes taught by native Russian speakers. The reason that the non-native speakers were better teachers of Russian is easy to see: the non-native speakers learned Russian later in life themselves, and so they have a better understanding of how the language can be taught effectively. Therefore, in order to improve instruction for all languages and also save money, our university should hire non-native speakers as language instructors instead of trying to find and recruit native speakers."
字数：393          用时：00:47:43          日期：2007-6-29 15:18:33

In this argument, the arguer concludes that to hire non-native speakers as language instructors instead of native speakers, which can improve for all language and also save money. To solidify the conclusion, the arguer points out a recent survey. Furthermore, the arguer reasons that the non-native speakers' advantagement about understanding of how to teach the language. However, a careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless the conclusion is. The argument is problematic for 3 reasons with vague.

First of all, the validity of the survey is doubtful, for lacking information about the number of respondents, it is impossible to access the validity of the results. For example, the surrey’s respondents are students who were studying beginning Russian. The students' abilities are unknown, so we cannot think it is only the teachers who can determine the scores. There is possible that the students who attend beginning Russian with native Russian speakers are not as gifted or diligent as those who attend with non-native speakers. Besides, scores is not the only way to measure the teaching levels. So it is improper to say non-native speakers have better teaching techniques than native sparkers.

In addition, there is no obvious evidence to prove the non-native speakers have better understanding of how the language can be taught effectively than native speakers. The school may hire a native Russian teacher lack of teaching experience, while the non-native speaker is an old teacher with full of experience and good communication with students. It is also likely that because of some special reasons, the school could not hire outstanding native
Russian speakers. So it is unreasonable to say the better understanding about teaching of non-native speakers than native ones.

Finally, there is no relationship between saving for money and hiring non-native speakers. The arguer does not give any proof to demonstrate this point. The non-native speakers teaching Russian may require more salary than native ones. Even so , we cannot predict the situation about the middle-or-high-ranking course about Russian, let alone the other language course. It seems ridiculous to hire non-native speakers dogmatically without thinking carefully.

To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to the arguer's claim. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer would have to provide more specific evidence concerning more multianalysis about this problem.

drlzUID: 2329258

In this argument, the arguer concludes that(recommends) to hire non-native speakers as language instructors instead of native speakers, which can improve(加个instruction) for all language and also save money. To solidify the conclusion, the arguer points out a recent survey. Furthermore, the arguer reasons that the non-native speakers' advantagement about understanding of how to teach the language.(这句话是个宾语从句 但是缺少谓语 改为 the non-native speakers have  better understanding of how to teach the language ) However, a careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless the conclusion is. The argument is problematic for 3 reasons with vague.

First of all, the validity of the survey is doubtful, for lacking information about the number of respondents, it is impossible to access the validity of the results. For example, the surrey’s respondents are students who were studying beginning Russian. The students' abilities are unknown, so we cannot think it is only the teachers who can determine the scores. There is possible(possibility) that the students who attend beginning Russian with(为什么用with? 用taught by吧) native Russian speakers are not as gifted or diligent as those who attend with(one taught by) non-native speakers. Besides, scores is not the only way to measure the teaching levels. So it is improper to say non-native speakers have better teaching techniques than native sparkers.

In addition, there is no obvious evidence to prove the non-native speakers have better understanding of how the language can be taught effectively than native speakers. The school may hire a native Russian teacher lack of teaching experience, while the non-native speaker is an old teacher with full of experience and good communication with students. It is also likely that because of some special reasons, the school could not hire outstanding native
Russian speakers. So it is unreasonable to say the better understanding about teaching of non-native speakers than native ones.( 这句话有问题, 该为So it is unreasonable to say non-native speakers have the better understanding of teaching  than native ones)

Finally, there is no relationship between saving for money and hiring non-native speakers. The arguer does not give any proof to demonstrate this point. The non-native speakers teaching Russian may require more salary than native ones. Even so , we cannot predict the situation about the middle-or-high-ranking course about Russian, let alone the other(the other 是另一个的意思,把the 去掉) language course. It seems ridiculous to hire non-native speakers dogmatically without thinking carefully.

To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to the arguer's claim. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer would have to provide more specific evidence concerning more multianalysis about this problem.