arguement140 [Savior小组]第四次作业

daqing431hdUID: 2320564

题目：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."


Merely depended on a series of unfound assumption and dubious evidence, the arguer recommends that Professor Thomas should accept a $10,000 raise and a promotion to Department Chairperson at Elm City University (ECU). If they do not take this measure, the Professor Thomas (PT) would be predicated to leave for another college. To support this conclusion, the arguer points out that Professor Thomas is good at teaching and researching because her classes are among the largest at the university and her classes are also welcome among students. In addition, the arguer indicates that the money she has brought to the university in research grants has exceeded her salary in each of the last two years. This argument seems logical. However, I find the argument suffers several critical respects as follows.

To begin with, the first flaw that weakens the credibility of this argument is that the committee at ECU falsely depends on a gratuitous assumption that PT had some discontent with her annual salary or she has already tended to leave from ECU for another university. But this assumption is obviously unwarranted. There is no evidence showed in this argument for why the committee had his fear. It is possible that PT is so much enjoying her work that she had no this plan which she would choose some other university. Therefore, this argument is unconvincing without ruling out such possibility.

Furthermore, another problem with this argument is that the committee has assumption that due to PT's demonstrated teaching and research abilities, she is worth to pay more salary and a promotion to Department Chairperson. Firstly, her largest classes at the university have no direct relation with her popularity. It is very likely that her classes must be taken by every student, thus there are most student in her classes. Secondly, she has brought to the university more money beyond her salary last two years, this evidence can not imply PT will always bring more money each year in the coming future. Thirdly, even her ability of teaching and researching is excellent, she might not be suitable for the Department Chairperson. There is such likely that she is only good at the teaching, whereas she has little ability of management. So the committee should balance PT comprehensively, prevent her to become an incapability Department Chairperson.

Finally, if there are some other colleges want to hire PT with providing her more salary and promotion, but PT might not accept this invitation. It is possible that she might change her position just as for the repute of college or some colleges can improve her research instrument and environment.

To sum up, this argument is not wholly persuasive as it stands. Some facts can be concluded that the better professor might not serve as a perfect Department Chairperson. The excellent professor chooses to leave for other colleges not only relying on the physical condition.