argument221 第五次作业 eaglewatchNO.2 冲刺

eaglewatchUID: 2374680

题目：ARGUMENT221 - The following appeared in the editorial section of a student newspaper.

"In a recent survey, most students who were studying beginning Russian gave higher course-evaluation ratings to classes taught by non-native Russian speakers than to classes taught by native Russian speakers. The reason that the non-native speakers were better teachers of Russian is easy to see: the non-native speakers learned Russian later in life themselves, and so they have a better understanding of how the language can be taught effectively. Therefore, in order to improve instruction for all languages and also save money, our university should hire non-native speakers as language instructors instead of trying to find and recruit native speakers."
字数：481          用时：0:30:00          日期：2008-8-5

In this section, merely based on unfounded assumptions and dubious evidence, the statement draws a conclusion that our university should hire non-native speakers rather than the natives in order to improve instruction and save money. To substantiate his statement, the speakers cites the "facts" and "evidence”: (1) most students gave higher course-evaluation rating to classes taught by non-native speakers; (2) the non-native speakers learned Russian later and could a better understanding of the instruction. At the first glance, the statement appears to be somewhat convincing; however, further reflection reveals that it omits several substantial concerns that should be addressed in the argument. In a word, the statement suffers from several flaws.

First and foremost, the arguer attempts to prove that the non-native could teach students more successfully than the native, citing the course-evaluation to illustrate it. As a matter of fact, the evaluation, in itself, lacks reliability--after all, it is done by the students. And it is entirely possible that the non-native can communicate with the students more directly in the native language (rather than the Russian), so that the students evaluate their native teacher subjectively. In contrast, the native teacher teaches more effectively. Obviously, the arguer ignores these possibilities, so that draw a flawed conclusion.

Secondly, the arguer claims that non-native speakers have a better understanding of how the language can be taught effectively. However, even though the evaluation can be trusted totally, and the non-native speakers really have a better understanding of that, the statement lacks the consideration of that whether the native speaks have a better understanding oh the language itself--if so, it is very possible that the native can teach the students the elite and pith of language, which can help them understand and apprehend the method how to learn the language. However, the arguer fails to consider this, so that make an assertive assumption.

Finally, the arguer reveals that we should fire non-native speakers as language teachers to improve instruction of all languages and also save money. In fact, there is no evidence offered that how much the native speaker cost and how much the non-native speakers cost. It cannot be draw a conclusion lacking the evidence. Nevertheless, the arguer belittles this point. In addition, even if the Russian instruction is bad and low-effective, whether we should hire the non-native speakers as all language instructors should consider carefully and objectively.

To sum up, the statement suffers from several flaws as we discussed above. To make the statement more convincing, the arguer should have provided more information about the reliability of the evaluation. What's more, he would have a deeper survey with the true effect between the non-native speaker and the native speaker, before draw a conclusion. The last, he had better offer the salary of the two kind of instructor, and consider whether should hire non-native speaker for all the language teaching.