Argument140 savior小组第四次作业 欢迎大家指教

lsyunxUID: 2443450

"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 this argument, the speaker suggests that Professor Thomas should receive a promotion and a raise in salary based on the evidence that her teaches the largest class and the research funds she has brought to the university exceeded her salary in the past two years. Though sounds appealing, the proof the speaker cites is unconvincing in several respects, as discussed below.

To begin with, the speaker unreasonably equals the popularity among students to the teaching the largest class. However, there is no obvious relationship between them. It’s entirely possible that the ultimate reason that Pro. Thomas teach the largest class is not her accomplished expertise or attractive teaching skill, but the course her teach is public required course. And the students have no choice but to go to class to get a mark. If so, the speaker’s advice remains dubious.

Secondly, it’s ridiculous to judge a professor’s research ability by the funds he/her brings to the university. How many research grants had Professor Thomas brought to university in the other 15 years during which her worked in Elm City University? If it was not so significant, I will be skeptical about the professor’s research ability. Moreover, it’s possible that the funds her brought to the university is due to the patronage’s trust with Professor Thomas’ certain collaborator’ research ability instead of her ability. In addition, if other faulty receive the same amount of study grants, this evidence would lend even less support to the speaker’s suggestion.

Furthermore, even that Professor Thomas indeed is popular among students and have an excellent research ability, that is not to say she is competent for the position of Department Chairperson. The ability to function as a qualified Chairperson is absolutely different with that required as a professor. If there are more appropriate candidate for this opening, Professor should not be considered first.
Finally, the speaker unfairly assumes that Professor Thomas tends to abdicate to chase a career in another college if not be promoted or get a pay rise. However, there is no evidence indicate that she will leave the Elm City University.  Even professor inclines to leave the university, the speaker should investigate the ultimate factors that contribute to the professor’s decision. Is the equipment in the laboratory is too dated, or the academic atmosphere of university is too boring? If so, the promotion and rise in pay would be useless in keeping this professor.

In sum, the speaker’s claim is indefensible as it stands, because the evidence he provides is unsubstantiated. To support his conclusion, he should also offer evidence that the professor is popular with the student and she’s an outstanding researcher. I also need know that whether the professor will leave unless being promoted and getting a pay rise.
(460words)