Argument140

woodmanUID：161906

Argument140
The following appeared in a report of theCommittee on Faculty Promotions and Salaries at Elm City University.
"During her seventeen years as a professor of botany, Professor Thomas hasproved herself to be well worth her annual salary of $50,000. Her classes areamong the largest at the university, demonstrating her popularity among students.Moreover, the money she has brought to the university in research grants hasexceeded her salary in each of the last two years. Therefore, in considerationof Professor Thomas' demonstrated teaching and research abilities, we recommendthat 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 anothercollege."


The arguer’s view seems to be sound andconvincing at first glance that it is reasonable to recommend that to give ProfessorThomas a $10,000 raise and a promotion to Department Chairperson, otherwise shemight leave Elm City Universityfor another college. However, I’m afraid his argument can hardly bear furtherconsideration since there are several flaws in it.

Firstly, thearguer fails to provide enough evidence that ProfessorThomas is well worth her annual salary of $50,000. In the argument, he claimsthat Professor Thomas’s classes are among the largest at the university,demonstrating her popularity among students. However, it is entirely possiblethat her classes are all compulsory one, which compel the student to attend. What’smore, students in her class might don’t enjoy her style of teaching, and theyjust sit in the classroom to kill time as well as to avoid being degradedscores for absence from class. From this point, no evidence shows ProfessorThomas’s class is popularized by students. Besides, in order to strengthen theviewpoint that Professor Thomas is worth her salary, the arguer maintains that themoney she has brought to the university in research grants has exceeded hersalary in each of the last two years, but merely money can’t prove her researchperformance since to evaluate people’s research abilities, many other factorssuch as equality of papers and the potential progress have to be considered. Withoutconsidering all these possibilities, the committee cannot conclude that ProfessorThomas is an effective teacher and therefore should be granted a raise and apromotion.

Secondly,even if Professor Thomas is well worth her annualsalary, the arguer fails to offer convincing proof that Professor Thomas issuitable for the position of the Department Chairperson. It is quite commonthat people who are accomplished in research perform not so well in administrationjob. It is possible that she dislike dealing with boring administrative affairsand what she is really interested in is teaching and research. Besides,maybe the promotion to Department Chairperson is at the cost of time, that isto say, Professor Thomas might have much less time to do her research, leadingto less achievements in her field. Thus, the recommendation of promotion mightnot be wise.

Finally, giventhat Professor Thomas is suitable for the position ofthe Department Chairperson, no evidence shows the raise and apromotion toProfessor Thomas is necessary, since no proof tell us she willleave Elm City Universityfor another college if such a raise and promotion is not guarantied. Perhapsmoney and position is not the key factors when she values her development in Elm City University. There ispossibility that because she has been in the Elm City University for many years, she mightlove this university and life there. Thus, she might not plan to transfer toanother college.

In all,to persuade me that the raise and a promotion toProfessorThomas is necessary,the arguer must provide evidence that she is well worthher salary and suitable for the position of the Department Chairperson..Moreover, the arguer should show me that she will leave Elm City University for another college withoutsuch a raise and promotion.

提纲
203
1.时间问题，时间短不代表着经济与好的质量
2.治愈率问题，因为两医院总人数不同，治愈率没有可比性
3.医生看病人数与抱怨问题，公立医院去的人多，因而看病人数多，抱怨少
154
1.没有证据表明频繁的巨烈室外运动比中等运动更使人长寿
2.把剧烈和频率是两个不同概念
3.研究的可信度。首先，不同地区，不同职业，人的状况不一样。其次，身体好的人，可能会比其它人更喜欢运动，尤其是一些强度大的运动。女人是否适合这个建议。
168
1.研究的可信度。需要提供该项研究的其他细节。
2.髋关节骨折少了，其它骨折没提，没有排除其它因素
3.没有证据表明吃D和钙减少骨折。
222
1.没有直接证据证明H校目前的社会学系不好。
2. 通过第一年内的统计结果，不能说明社会科学的学生更难找到工作
3.多提供课程和找新的有名望的老师并不能保证更多的社会学系的学生能找到终身职业

                                                                              

[ 本帖最后由 woodman 于 2007-7-22 03:03 编辑 ]

nornsUID：2325187

Argument140
The following appeared in a report of theCommittee on Faculty Promotions and Salaries at Elm City University.
"During her seventeen years as a professor of botany, Professor Thomas hasproved herself to be well worth her annual salary of $50,000. Her classes areamong the largest at the university, demonstrating her popularity among students.Moreover, the money she has brought to the university in research grants hasexceeded her salary in each of the last two years. Therefore, in considerationof Professor Thomas' demonstrated teaching and research abilities, we recommendthat 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 anothercollege."


The arguer’s view seems to be sound andconvincing at first glance that it is reasonable to recommend that to give ProfessorThomas a $10,000 raise and a promotion to Department Chairperson, otherwise shemight leave Elm City Universityfor another college. However, I’m afraid his argument can hardly bear furtherconsideration since there are several flaws in it. (有一个模板流派支持在段首把假设，论据，和结论摆出来，为攻论作准备)

Firstly, thearguer fails to provide enough evidence that ProfessorThomas is well worth her annual salary of $50,000. In the argument, he claimsthat Professor Thomas’s classes are among the largest at the university,demonstrating her popularity among students. However, it is entirely possiblethat her classes are all compulsory one, which compel the student to attend. What’smore, students in her class might don’t enjoy her style of teaching, and theyjust sit in the classroom to kill time as well as to avoid being degradedscores for absence from class. From this point, no evidence shows ProfessorThomas’s class is popularized by students. Besides, in order to strengthen theviewpoint that Professor Thomas is worth her salary, the arguer maintains that themoney she has brought to the university in research grants has exceeded hersalary in each of the last two years, but merely money can’t prove her researchperformance since to evaluate people’s research abilities, many other factorssuch as equality of papers and the potential progress have to be considered. Withoutconsidering all these possibilities, the committee cannot conclude that ProfessorThomas is an effective teacher and therefore should be granted a raise and apromotion.

Secondly,even if Professor Thomas is well worth her annual salary, the arguer fails to offer convincing proof that Professor Thomas issuitable for the position of the Department Chairperson. It is quite commonthat people who are accomplished in research perform not so well in administrationjob. It is possible that she dislike dealing with boring administrative affairsand what she is really interested in is teaching and research. Besides,maybe the promotion to Department Chairperson is at the cost of time, that isto say, Professor Thomas might have much less time to do her research, leadingto less achievements in her field. Thus, the recommendation of promotion mightnot be wise 原题假设：不加薪不提职她会跑掉 原题结论：应该加薪/应该提职   应该从这个逻辑关系入手；而你提到提职可能对研究造成不利影响，论点的逻辑链没有“这一段的这层”这一段发散了

Finally, giventhat Professor Thomas is suitable for the position ofthe Department Chairperson, no evidence shows the raise and apromotion toProfessor Thomas is necessary, since no proof tell us she willleave Elm City Universityfor another college if such a raise and promotion is not guarantied. Perhapsmoney and position is not the key factors when she values her development in Elm City University. There ispossibility that because she has been in the Elm City University for many years, she mightlove this university and life there. Thus, she might not plan to transfer toanother college.

In all,to persuade me that the raise and a promotion toProfessorThomas is necessary,the arguer must provide evidence that she is well worthher salary and suitable for the position of the Department Chairperson..Moreover, the arguer should show me that she will leave Elm City University for another college withoutsuch a raise and promotion.

最后，题外话，你天天3点多睡，每天几点起的啊？ 呵呵， 别太累着了
，

zhangjing106UID：2157010

The arguer’s view seems to be sound and convincing at first glance that it is reasonable to recommend that to give ProfessorThomas a $10,000 raise and a promotion to Department Chairperson, otherwise shemight leave Elm City Universityfor another college. However, I’m afraid his argument can hardly bear further consideration since there are several flaws in it. Firstly, thearguer fails to provide enough evidence（复数） that Professor Thomas is well worth her annual salary of $50,000. In the argument, he claimsthat Professor Thomas’s classes are among the largest at the university,demonstrating her popularity among students. However, it is entirely possiblethat her classes are all compulsory one, which compel the student to attend. What’smore, students in her class might don’t enjoy her style of teaching, and theyjust sit in the classroom to kill time as well as to avoid being degradedscores for absence from class. From this point, no evidence shows ProfessorThomas’s class is popularized by students. Besides, in order to strengthen theviewpoint that Professor Thomas is worth her salary, the arguer maintains that themoney she has brought to the university in research grants has exceeded hersalary in each of the last two years, but merely money can’t prove her researchperformance since to evaluate people’s research abilities, many other factorssuch as equality of papers and the potential progress have to be considered. Withoutconsidering all these possibilities, the committee cannot conclude that ProfessorThomas is an effective teacher and therefore should be granted a raise and apromotion.Secondly,even if Professor Thomas is well worth her annualsalary, the arguer fails to offer convincing proof that Professor Thomas issuitable for the position of the Department Chairperson. It is quite commonthat people who are accomplished in research perform not so well in administrationjob. It is possible that she dislike dealing with boring administrative affairsand what she is really interested in is teaching and research. Besides,maybe the promotion to Department Chairperson is at the cost of time, that isto say, Professor Thomas might have much less time to do her research, leadingto less achievements in her field. Thus, the recommendation of promotion mightnot be wise.（当了主任会影响教授的工作虽说也不错，但是不是从“能当好教授不一定能当好主任”来说会更好？）Finally, giventhat Professor Thomas is suitable for the position ofthe Department Chairperson, no evidence shows the raise and apromotion toProfessor Thomas is necessary, since no proof tell us she willleave Elm City Universityfor another college if such a raise and promotion is not guarantied. Perhapsmoney and position is not the key factors when she values her development in Elm City University. There ispossibility that because she has been in the Elm City University for many years, she mightlove this university and life there. Thus, she might not plan to transfer toanother college.In all,to persuade me that the raise and a promotion toProfessorThomas is necessary,the arguer must provide evidence（复数） that she is well worthher salary and suitable for the position of the Department Chairperson..Moreover, the arguer should show me that she will leave Elm City University for another college withoutsuch a raise and promotion.

无话可说。很流畅。