Argument140 [OB小组]_第6次作业_Raise and promotion Prof Thomas at Elm City U

ldongxpUID: 2311083

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: 418          TIME: 00:29:54          DATE: 2007-7-18

In this argument, the author recommends that Elm City University should give a raise of salary and a promotion to Professor Thomas. To support this recommendation, the author points out that the classes of Professor Thomas are the largest ones in the university and that Professor Thomas brought much research grants to the university. The author also notes that without the raise and promotion, Professor Thomas would leave Elm City University. However, this argument suffers from several critical flaws and is therefore unconvincing as it stands.

First of all, the fact that the classes of Professor Thomas are the largest ones in the university does not necessarily indicate that she is popular among students, letting alone good teaching ability. Perhaps the courses taught by Professor Thomas are compulsory and every student has to take her course. Or perhaps she is the only one teacher in the university who taught that course. It is also possible that student who chose her classes can pass the exam easily. Without ruling these and other possibilities, the author cannot make a persuasive recommendation.

Secondly, the fact that Professor Thomas has brought much money to the university in research grants has little indication that she is good at research. It is entirely possible that the money which Professor Thomas brought to university was mainly owed to her partner who is really good at research. Or perhaps Professor Thomas is just good at apply money but not research. Without accounting for these and other possibilities, the author cannot draw a broader recommendation based on such a fact.

Finally, the author unfairly assumes that Professor Thomas would leave Elm City University without a raise of salary and a promotion. Lacking evidence to support this assumption, it is entirely possible that Professor Thomas herself never thought about a raise or promotion. Or perhaps she would go to other college no matter whether she receives a raise and promotion or not. Another possibility is that Professor Thomas just wants the raise of salary but not promotion. Without considering such possibilities, the author cannot make a convincing recommendation based on such an assumption.

In sum, this recommendation is not well supported. To bolster this recommendation, the author must provides clear evidence that Professor Thomas indeed has demonstrating abilities of both teaching and research and that Professor Thomas would leave without a raise and a promotion. To better assess the recommendation, more information about Professor Thomas and more detail about the promotion and raise of salary are needed.