[YB-2]7月5日作业 by AdelineShen

AdelineShenUID: 2630498

Issue 和 Argument 都是本人第一篇，主要靠模仿。发现Issue字数好像还远远不够，哎，要加油啊！~
希望大虾指点迷津，感激不尽！~

Issue 16
"Although many people think that the luxuries and conveniences of
contemporary life are entirely harmless, they in fact, prevent people  
from developing into truly strong and independent individuals."

In this era of rapid social and technological change leading to  
increasing life luxuries and convenience, have people's true strength  
and independence as individuals been undermined? The statement above  
tends to believe so, which I do not agree with.

As opposed to the speaker's view, I would argue that modern facilities  
provide humans with more independence. The automobile, for example,
serves  to enhance independence in transportation and residence. Cars make it  
possible for people to travel to isolated areas without suffering the  
stuffiness of public transportation, and to pursue employment far from  
their communities. Modern ways of transportation provide people with  
prolific opportunities to travel around the world alone, thus forcing  
them to become independent gradually.

In addition, people work more effectively and efficiently with the aid  
of such conveniences as the automobile and the computer. We are more  
productive than ever. With the contemporary facility, people have more  
time to engage themselves in other meaningful activities or to spend  
with their families. A case in point is that a student can do more
exercise such as aerobic exercise to improve his or her body health when all the
other irrelevant things are taken over by machines.

Furthermore, modern life has, in fact, made it much easier for us to
make  ourselves stronger. Advanced implements and good medical care all  
contributed to our health and fitness. People become more aware of
their fitness. Variety ways of bodybuilding have made people stronger.
So is it right to claim that contemporary life only makes people weak and  
dependent?

In conclusion, while some people may still remain unconvinced, the  
reason that I have analyzed above should at least make them aware of  
the complexities of the issue under discussion. There is little doubt  
that more and more people will come to realize that contemporary life  
will make humans more independent and strong, not the opposite!


A169:The following appeared in a letter from a department chairperson to the president of Pierce University.
"Some studies conducted by Bronston College, which is also located in a small town, reveal that both male and female professors are happier living in small towns when their spouses are also employed in the same geographic area. Therefore, in the interest of attracting the most gifted teachers and researchers to our faculty and improving the morale of our entire staff, we at Pierce University should offer employment to the spouse of each new faculty member we hire. Although we cannot expect all offers to be accepted or to be viewed as an ideal job offer, the money invested in this effort will clearly be well spent because, if their spouses have a chance of employment, new professors will be more likely to accept our offers."

In this analysis,the arguer claims that Pierce University should offer employment to the spouse of each new faculty member that they hire.To substantiate the conclusion,the aguer cites the example of Bronston College where professors prefer to have their spouse employed in the same geographical area.

First of all,the argument is based on a hasty generalization.According to the cited studies,professors at Bronston College are happier living in small towns when their spouses are also employed in the local area than when their spouses work in distant areas,which is understandable.
This fact tells very little about what actual conditions the professors often consider as important when they choose where to work. Even if we accept the arguer's assumption that whether their spouse can find a job in the local area is the onyl important question that new professors consider when they decide whether to accept an offer in a university situated in a small town,the arguer's recommendation is still unconvincing.Only when the offer of employment to the spouse is regarded as an ideal one and therefore accepted is it likely that the professor will consider accepting the university's offer.Consequently, it is unwarranted to assume that new professors will accept Pierce's offer whether their spouse can find satisfactory employment in the local area.

In addition,the arguer fails to consider several other relevant factors  that may influence new professors' decision.For instance,since Pierce's location is not ideal,the pay it offers should be high enough to be attractive.New gifted professors are also concerned about the position they can have and the courses they are supposed to teach in the new university.What's more,what researchers care most about might be the university's research conditions such as laboratory equipments,adequate research funds,etc.

Finally,the arguer hints that the morale of Pierce's entire staff is low,but he fails to analyze the causes.It is because the management of the university is poor,or because the pay is too low,or because the local area suffers from economic depression,or because the local environment is severely damaged by industrial pollution?

Under these circumstances,offering employment to the spouse would be ineffective at all for the purpose of attracting more new professors.As it stands,the argument is not well reasoned.To make it logically acceptable,the arguer would have to demonstrate that an offer of employment to the spouse is the only condition that new professors consider on accepting Pierce's offer.Additionally,the arguer must provide evidence to rule out other possible causes of the low staff morale at the university.