Argument140 [aero小组] 第九次作业 by 武寒 (武汉还在下雪)

武寒UID: 2300087

140The 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."

In the argument, the author recommends that Prof. Thomas should receive a $10,000 raise and a promotion to Department Chairperson, unless she maybe leaves Elm City University for another college. At first glance, the author’s recommendation seems reasonable. But when scrutinizing the argument, several facets questionable will be found.

First and foremost, the author argues that Prof. Thomas brought research grants more than her salary in last two years. The evidence cited is in order to prove that the professor did great contribution to the College. But the author does not clearly tell how much grants the professor receive, and only compares the grants with the professor’s salary. Because the grants are for the research and not hand up to the school, it’s absurd to compare the professor’s salary with the grants.

Secondly, the evidence says that the professor’s classes are among the largest at the university, but that can’t prove Professor Thomas is welcomed by the students. So that also can not support the recommendation. Maybe there are many students in the subject of botany, and the course given by Professor Thomas is a required course. The course is not chosen by the students but by the college. From above all, we can see even if the classes taught by Prof. Thomas are the largest in the university, that can not suggest the professor is popular.

The last but not the least, in the whole report the author does not mention the comparison between the Prof. Thomas and the other professors, but only suggests the salary raise for the Prof. Thomas. Without the comparison, the evidences cited can not supported the authors’ suggestion. Whether the professor deserves to a salary raise and the promotion depends mainly on the professor do more contributions to the college that the other professors. But anything about that is involved in the report, so the author can not support the recommendation strongly.

In sum, the recommendation lacks of support. The author has overlooked or chosen to ignore many aspects supported the conclusion. Maybe the professor really does great contributions to the College. But without comparing with the other professors, it’s hard to tell whether the professor deserves to be the chairperson of the department. To strengthen the recommendation, the author should give more evidences about the above-mentioned possibilities.