Argument140 0806G加速度小组第四次作业大帖

nun318UID: 2205752

:)

140.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."

在Thomas教授作为植物学教授的17年里，她证明了自己确实是值50000元年薪的。她的班级是本校最大的班级之一，这说明她在学生中间的受欢迎度。而且，她给学校带来的研究捐助在过去两年中都超过了她的年薪。因此，鉴于Thomas教授已被证实的教学和研究能力，我们建议将她的年薪增加10000元，并提升为系主任；如果没有这些加薪和提升，我们担心Thomas教授将会离开Elm City大学到别的学校就职。

雪梦无痕UID: 2447732

WORDS: 604          TIME: 00:58:57          DATE: 2008/1/20 14:41:24

In the argument, the arguer concludes that Professor Thomas should receive a raise in her salary and a promotion to the Department Chairperson. To support the conclusion, the arguer reasons that Thomas's classes are among the largest and she brings more money to the university than she has got. The argument suffers from several critical fallacies.

First of all, the arguer fails to present more evidence to convince us that Thomas is really popular with the students. As we all know that the number of students in every department of a university differs from one another, maybe the students in Thomas's department is the largest itself. It may explain why her classes are among the largest fairly well. From our common sense we know that one of the criteria that whether a teacher is popular or not depend on the atmosphere in his or her class. When we are faced with the choice of two teachers----one teaches in a small class where the students are very active while the other teaches in a larger class where the students feel awkward at class, there is no doubt that the former one will become more popular. The arguer does not provide sufficient information to show that if the students of her class is active. Maybe many of them have a feeling that what the teacher has taught is rather boring that they incline to do other things which they think is more interesting and important and some of the students may even fall asleep in class, which all proves that Thomas is not doing a good job.

In addition, the conclusion rests on the gratuitous assumption that Thomas has high research abilities. It is well known that whether a professor has high research abilities or not draws more on how many papers he or she has published and the qualities of the published papers than the money he or she brings to a larger unit. Maybe the program Thomas has engaged in is just profitable, we do not know if the program has a high value in science or maybe the money she brought to the University was far less than her salary two years ago. It is highly possible that there are other professors who have published more papers which are of high value than she. It is also possible that some famous individuals brings more money to the university which the arguer fails to mention, in that case, we cannot conclude has higher research abilities than other people.

Last but not least, the arguer seems to oversimplify the problem about being the Department Chairperson. The person who is qualified for the chairperson should have many other merits besides a good teaching skill and research abilities, he or she should have a systematic knowledge of his fields and be specialized in management at the same time. If the person has no ideas of how to manage a large department if he is elected to be the chairman, it is surely a disaster while the arguer ignores to claim that Thomas has the ability to manage a department well or she has any experience in managing. He or she should have a reputation in the department that most of the teachers and professors will support his job as well.

In sum, the argument is not persuasive as it stands, before we accept the suggestion that Thomas get a rise in her salary and promoted to the Department Chairperson, the arguer have to provide more sufficient evidence to show that she really is popular with the students and is qualified to be the chairperson to solidify the conclusion.

雪梦无痕UID: 2447732

占座 改堕落
In this analysis, the arguer attempts to convince us that Professor Thomas should receive a $10,000 raise and a promotion, and otherwise she may leave Elm City University for another college. The major assumption underlying this argument is that Thomas has great teaching and research abilities. However, several important concerns, which the arguer fails to address in the analysis, may seriously undermine the argument.

First of all, this argument is based on the problematic assumption that Professor Thomas has great teaching talent. The arguer demonstrates her popularity by stating that her classes are among the largest in the university, which does not stand convincing. For instance, maybe her classes are important that lots of students have to take. And there also exists the chance（possibility） that the number of students who major in botany is considerable and, if so, her ability of teaching may not be as great as the arguer assumes. As a result, her teaching ability is still open to doubt.（基本上没错误，可以加点学生上课的表现之类的攻击）

In addition, the argument is also based on the doubtable assumption that Thomas's research ability is good. In order to prove it, the arguer says that the money Thomas has brought to the university in research grants has exceeded her own salary in each of the last two years. Nevertheless, the arguer does not tell me how much, actually, she has brought to the university, and how much other professors have in the last two years. And the arguer also fails to convince me that Thomas has brought much money during other years as well. If most of the professors in this University brought much more money than she did, or Thomas has brought little to the university during other years, we can not be convinced that Professor Thomas owns good research ability.(个人觉得带来的钱的多少和研究能力的高低不能划等号，应该从发表的论文数量质量方面看。这样又多一个攻击点)

Finally, the arguer fails to rule out the possibility that even if she receives a $10,000 raise and a promotion, she will still leave Elm City University. For example, if she does not like the atmosphere on this campus（不错）, or her parents are ill and（美国人一般很独立的）, as a consequence, she has to look after them and they live far away, then she will leave the university in spite of the raise in income and promotion. What’s more, it is probable that the professor is content with her contemporary income, so it will be a waste of money to increase her income.

In summary, this argument is not persuasive as it stands. Before we accept the conclusion, the arguer must present more facts to prove that Professor Thomas has great teaching and researching abilities, and should also considers whether money really matters for her.

这篇文章基本没有语法错误，这点很好，但是字数太少，可以增加些攻击点，比如上文提到的和还有能不能当系主任还牵扯到很多问题等等比如威望，管理能力啊

[ 本帖最后由 雪梦无痕 于 2008-1-20 21:32 编辑 ]

loogloogUID: 2447845

我来啦

WORDS: 449          TIME: 00:29:57         
In this report, the arguer concludes that the university should recommend Professor Thomas a $10,000 raise and a position of Department Chairperson. To support this conclusion, the arguer provides the evidences that Professor Thomas's classes are among the biggest in the university. The arguer also cites the research grants to support strengthen the conclusion. However, thinking over about the processing of the demonstration, some logic flaws emerge.

To begin with, the arguer fails to establish the relationship between the classes and the teaching ability, by only pointing out that her classes are among the biggest ones. Can the scale of the classes explain the teaching ability? Obviously not. For instance, if her classes are all the compulsory ones, all students have no choices but learning her courses, at any case of the teaching ability. Yet, it is another case occurring that she sent a high score to her students, which can lead to the same condition. Without excluding these cases, any conclusion about the teaching ability is unreliable and doubtful.

At the same time, the relationship between research grants and research ability is also suspicion. Is obtaining more research grants the sign of excellent research ability? When considering the processing of obtaining the research grants as the complex, the relationship between them is unreliable. It is entirely that Professor Thomas is good at gaming instead of research. Or perhaps, she was just gaining the grants by chances. Even if I concede the research grants can reflect the research ability, the arguer still fails to convince me that the Professor owns excellent ability with gaining the grants exceeding her salary. More information about the grants should present to convince me. Without these information including the accurate amounts of grants and the grants of others', the conclusion would be illusion.

On the other hand, the arguer commits a fallacy of "a gratuitous assumption", when assuming the professor will leave the university or the Professor would like to love the way of prizing. Perhaps, even if a lower salary, the professor still wonder to research in the Elm City university do to the fresh air, well social security etc. Or perhaps, the professor just pleases to research instead of a Chairperson for the sake of his personal predilection. Only taking these factors into accounts, the prize will be real effective and meet the need of Professor Thomas.

In summary, the fallacy in the processing of logic demonstration is fatal to the report. To strengthen the conclusion, the relationship about the scale of classes and teaching ability, about the grants and research ability should be clear. At the same time more information about the grants and the predilection of the professor should be presented.

loogloogUID: 2447845

我来啦！字有点少，下次努力！
WORDS: 449          TIME: 00:29:57         
In this report, the arguer concludes that the university should recommend Professor Thomas a $10,000 raise and a position of Department Chairperson. To support this conclusion, the arguer provides the evidences that Professor Thomas's classes are among the biggest in the university. The arguer also cites the research grants to support strengthen the conclusion. However, thinking over about the processing of the demonstration, some logic flaws emerge.

To begin with, the arguer fails to establish the relationship between the classes and the teaching ability, by only pointing out that her classes are among the biggest ones. Can the scale of the classes explain the teaching ability? Obviously not. For instance, if her classes are all the compulsory ones, all students have no choices but learning her courses, at any case of the teaching ability. Yet, it is another case occurring that she sent a high score to her students, which can lead to the same condition. Without excluding these cases, any conclusion about the teaching ability is unreliable and doubtful.

At the same time, the relationship between research grants and research ability is also suspicion. Is obtaining more research grants the sign of excellent research ability? When considering the processing of obtaining the research grants as the complex, the relationship between them is unreliable. It is entirely that Professor Thomas is good at gaming instead of research. Or perhaps, she was just gaining the grants by chances. Even if I concede the research grants can reflect the research ability, the arguer still fails to convince me that the Professor owns excellent ability with gaining the grants exceeding her salary. More information about the grants should present to convince me. Without these information including the accurate amounts of grants and the grants of others', the conclusion would be illusion.

On the other hand, the arguer commits a fallacy of "a gratuitous assumption", when assuming the professor will leave the university or the Professor would like to love the way of prizing. Perhaps, even if a lower salary, the professor still wonder to research in the Elm City university do to the fresh air, well social security etc. Or perhaps, the professor just pleases to research instead of a Chairperson for the sake of his personal predilection. Only taking these factors into accounts, the prize will be real effective and meet the need of Professor Thomas.

In summary, the fallacy in the processing of logic demonstration is fatal to the report. To strengthen the conclusion, the relationship about the scale of classes and teaching ability, about the grants and research ability should be clear. At the same time more information about the grants and the predilection of the professor should be presented.

loogloogUID: 2447845

占座！该路遥的
Argument140 0806G加速度小组第四次作业


WORDS: 604          TIME: 00:58:57          DATE: 2008/1/20 14:41:24

In the argument, the arguer concludes that Professor Thomas should receive a raise in her salary and a promotion to the Department Chairperson. To support the conclusion, the arguer reasons（好诡异） that Thomas's classes are among the largest and she brings more money to the university than she has got. The argument suffers from several critical fallacies.

First of all, the arguer fails to present more evidence to convince us that Thomas is really popular with the students. As we all know that the number of students in every department of a university differs from one another, maybe the students in Thomas's department is the largest itself. It may explain why her classes are among the largest fairly well. From our common sense we know that one of the criteria that whether a teacher is popular or not depend on the atmosphere in his or her class. When we are faced with the choice of two teachers----one teaches in a small class where the students are very active while the other teaches in a larger class where the students feel awkward at class, there is no doubt that the former one will become more popular. The arguer does not provide sufficient information to show that if the students of her class is active. Maybe many of them have a feeling that what the teacher has taught is rather boring that they incline to do other things which they think is more interesting and important and some of the students may even fall asleep in class, which all proves that Thomas is not doing a good job.（我觉得写得有点像issue,而不是argument，应该简洁些。论证无力）

In addition, the conclusion rests on the gratuitous assumption（不是无据假设吧，是因果关系错把） that Thomas has high research abilities. It is well known that whether a professor has high research abilities or not draws more on how many papers he or she has published and the qualities of the published papers than（instead ） the money he or she brings to a larger unit. Maybe the program Thomas has engaged in is just profitable, we do not know if the program has a high value in science or maybe the money she brought to the University was far less than her salary two years ago. It is highly possible that there are other professors who have published more papers which are of high value than she（hers）. It is also possible that some famous individuals brings more money to the university which the arguer fails to mention,（这个他因好像不对吧） in that case, we cannot conclude has higher research abilities than other people.

Last but not least, the arguer seems to oversimplify the problem about being the Department Chairperson. The person who is qualified for the chairperson should have many other merits besides a good teaching skill and research abilities, he or she should have a systematic knowledge of his fields and be specialized in management at the same time. If the person has no ideas of how to manage a large department if he is elected to be the chairman, it is surely a disaster while the arguer ignores to claim that Thomas has the ability to manage a department well or she has any experience in managing.（这里有问题，两个if层次不清，把这分为两个句子好些） He or she should have a reputation in the department （so that）that most of the teachers and professors will support his job as well.

In sum, the argument is not persuasive as it stands, before we accept the suggestion that Thomas get a rise in her salary and promoted to the Department Chairperson, the arguer have to provide more sufficient evidence to show that she really is popular with the students and is qualified to be the chairperson to solidify the conclusion.
总体觉得是反驳不有力，语法无问题。而且段后没总结！有些句子显得混乱，逻辑不清。

[ 本帖最后由 loogloog 于 2008-1-20 22:56 编辑 ]

xiayanshadowUID: 2374500

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: 369          TIME: 00:33:55          DATE: 2008-1-20 17:33:48

In this analysis, the arguer attempts to convince us that Professor Thomas should receive a $10,000 raise and a promotion, and otherwise she may leave Elm City University for another college. The major assumption underlying this argument is that Thomas has great teaching and research abilities. However, several important concerns, which the arguer fails to address in the analysis, may seriously undermine the argument.

First of all, this argument is based on the problematic assumption that Professor Thomas has great teaching talent. The arguer demonstrates her popularity by stating that her classes are among the largest in the university, which does not stand convincing. For instance, maybe her classes are important that lots of students have to take. And there also exists the chance that the number of students who major in botany is considerable and, if so, her ability of teaching may not be as great as the arguer assumes. As a result, her teaching ability is still open to doubt.

In addition, the argument is also based on the doubtable assumption that Thomas's research ability is good. In order to prove it, the arguer says that the money Thomas has brought to the university in research grants has exceeded her own salary in each of the last two years. Nevertheless, the arguer does not tell me how much, actually, she has brought to the university, and how much other professors have in the last two years. And the arguer also fails to convince me that Thomas has brought much money during other years as well. If most of the professors in this University brought much more money than she did, or Thomas has brought little to the university during other years, we can not be convinced that Professor Thomas owns good research ability.

Finally, the arguer fails to rule out the possibility that even if she receives a $10,000 raise and a promotion, she will still leave Elm City University. For example, if she does not like the atmosphere on this campus, or her parents are ill and, as a consequence, she has to look after them and they live far away, then she will leave the university in spite of the raise in income and promotion. What’s more, it is probable that the professor is content with her contemporary income, so it will be a waste of money to increase her income.

In summary, this argument is not persuasive as it stands. Before we accept the conclusion, the arguer must present more facts to prove that Professor Thomas has great teaching and researching abilities, and should also considers whether money really matters for her.

xiayanshadowUID: 2374500

我来啦！字有点少，下次努力！
WORDS: 449          TIME: 00:29:57         
In this report, the arguer concludes that the university should recommend（這個詞用得好诡异） Professor Thomas a $10,000 raise and a position of Department Chairperson. To support this conclusion, the arguer provides the evidences（我记得哪本书上说evidence经常被考GRE的同学误用为可数名词~。~！）that Professor Thomas's classes are among the biggest in the university. The arguer also cites the research grants to support strengthen the conclusion. However, thinking over about the processing of the demonstration, some logic flaws emerge.

To begin with, the arguer fails to establish the relationship between the classes（the size of classes） and the teaching ability, by only pointing out that her classes are among the biggest ones. Can the scale of the classes explain the teaching ability? Obviously not（并不是显然不行。。。而是得先排除其他一些因素然后才能说行）. For instance, if her classes are all the compulsory ones, all students have no choices but learning（to learn） her courses, at any case of the teaching ability(这个地方有点别扭). Yet, it is another case occurring （There exists another possibility）that she sent a high score (high scores) to her students, which can lead to the same condition. Without excluding these cases, any conclusion about the teaching ability is unreliable and doubtful.

At the same time, the relationship between research grants and research ability is also suspicion (suspicious). Is obtaining more research grants the sign of excellent research ability? When considering the processing of obtaining the research grants as the complex, the relationship between them is unreliable. It is entirely （怎么能说entirely捏~。~！这样会被反argu的）that Professor Thomas is good at gaming instead of research. Or perhaps, she was just gaining the grants by chances（by chance这种理由感觉太牵强，最好换一个吧，比如说虽然她的钱比工资多，但是别的教授得到的钱更多）. Even if I concede the research grants can reflect the research ability, the arguer still fails to convince me that the Professor owns excellent ability with gaining the grants exceeding her salary. More information about the grants should present to convince me. Without these（this） information including the accurate amounts of grants and the grants of others', the conclusion would be illusion.

On the other hand, the arguer commits a fallacy of "a gratuitous assumption", （去掉逗号）when assuming the professor will leave the university or the Professor would like to love the way of prizing. Perhaps, even if a lower salary, the professor still wonder（wonder to？有这种说法？） to research in the Elm City university do（due） to the fresh air, well social security etc. Or perhaps, the professor just pleases to research instead of a Chairperson for the sake of his personal predilection. Only taking these factors into accounts, the prize will be real effective and meet the need of Professor Thomas.

In summary, the fallacy in the processing of logic demonstration is fatal to the report. To strengthen the conclusion, the relationship about the scale of classes and teaching ability, about（去掉about） the grants and research ability should be clear. At the same time more information about the grants and the predilection of the professor should be presented.