argument140[0806G-desperado小组]第六次作业by hongdan

hongdanUID: 2228730

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."

1.她的班级是最大的，表示了她在学生中的受欢迎程度。不一定
2.她给学校过去两年带来的研究补助都超过了她的工资。不一定表明了她的研究能力。
3.考虑到她的教学和研究本领，我们建议给她加工资，并提升为主席。这样做是否合理？
4.没有这样做的话，我们害怕她会离开我们学校去另外一个学校。这样做了就能保证她不离开了吗，还有其他的因素要考虑


The arguer professes that a salary raise and a promotion should be given to Professor Thomas to prevent her from leaving Elm City University. To ensure the necessities, the author cited the fact that Thomas’s classes are among the largest in the university and that her research grants has exceeded her salary during the past two years. The argument appears to be well presented, yet, close scrutiny reveals that it is far from satisfactory reasoned. Indeed, the argument suffers from several logical flaws, listed as follow.

Based on the fact that the classes of Professor Thomas are the largest in the university, the author concludes that Thomas gains great popularity from students. However, as we know nothing about the “classes”, we can not agree. It is entire possible that the classes are mandatory classes, that is, almost students in the university have to participate in the classes. For example, if her classes are about the fundamental theories of botany, then everyone learning about botany must study these classes as a beginning or re-study to underpin their theoretical knowledge. In such cases, a myriad of students, no matter neither beginners nor experts, will take part in the classes. And their carving to learn knowledge is the main reason for the largest participants in Professor Thomas’s classes. Again, when there is only one professor in the university to teach these fundamental curriculums, even Thomas is not very good at teaching; the students will be volunteered to take the courses to gain more knowledge which may not be gotten by self-learning.

Another evidence to prove Professor Thomas’s research ability lies in the higher research grants she has brought to the university than her salary. Yet, in this argument, the happening time is just in the last two years. Two years is not a long year-time when compared with her seventeen years’ teaching life. What about the previous conditions of the other fifteen years of Thomas? Dose she also bring to the university research grants? If there were no any records about her research, how to secure that the current two years’ research grants will be lasted forever? Are the two years’ research grants just a temporary measure to encourage her to research? Or the two years’ research grants are given to all professors to improve the overall research rather than for the reason of her outstanding research ability. Further, whether the amount of the research grants is larger remains a question. In this argument, it is only said that the research grants are higher then her salary, and if the average research grants of the whole research fields in the university has highly exceeded her research grants, then, it can not illustrate her research ability. Without rolling out these or those possibilities, the author cannot persuade me to admit her demonstrating teaching and research abilities.

Even assuming that Professor Thomas has high teaching and research ability, the suggestion of promoting her to a chairperson is not so reasonable. Common senses tell that teaching and administrating is two kinds of job, quite different from each other. In spite of her excellent ability in teaching and researching, it does not mean that she will do well in being a leader, let alone the Department Chairperson. If so, the university will probably lose a good teacher and instead get a poor administrator. Without considering her other abilities, just according to her teaching and research abilities, the recommendation may be do a negative effect, for the teacher or the university.

Finally, as a good teacher and researcher, she will not choose her job merely based on the salary and job position. More important factors include the developing opportunity, being interested in research fields, the fame and reputation of the university, the comfort working environment, even more important, experimental facilities and research conditions and so forth. Hence, the author should merely take the ostensible self-interests into consideration. On the other hand, if the professor really has favored a university, of which she is very fond, can salary arise and promotion change her mind and decide to keep in? It can also not assure. To keep a good teacher and researcher, the university should take all possible factors into consideration and only then can get an effective measurement.

In sum, the author fails to assure us that the professor is really a good teacher, and also a good researcher. In addition, the suggestion is also not very practical. To support the conclusion, the author should do plenty of additional work.

grace040802UID: 2348819

The arguer professes that a salary raise and a promotion should be given to Professor Thomas in order to prevent her from leaving Elm City University. To ensure the necessities, the author cites the fact that Thomas’s classes are among the largest in the university and that her research grants has exceeded her salary during the past two years. The argument appears to be well presented, yet, close scrutiny reveals that it is far from satisfactory reasoned. Indeed, the argument suffers from several logical flaws, listed as follow. (最后一句写得好好,赞一个)

Based on the fact that the classes of Professor Thomas are the largest in the university, the author concludes that Thomas gains great popularity from students. However, as we know nothing about the “classes”, we can not agree. It is entire possible that the classes are mandatory classes, that is, almost students in the university have to participate in the classes. For example, if her classes are about the fundamental theories of botany, then everyone learning about botany must study these classes as a beginning or re-study to underpin their theoretical knowledge. In such cases, a myriad of students, no matter neither beginners nor experts, will take part in the classes. And their carving to learn knowledge is the main reason for the largest participants in Professor Thomas’s classes. Again, when there is only one professor in the university to teach these fundamental curriculums, even Thomas is not very good at teaching; the students will be volunteered to take the courses to gain more knowledge which may not be gotten by self-learning.

Another evidence to prove Professor Thomas’s research ability lies in the higher research grants she has brought to the university than her salary. Yet, in this argument, the happening time is just in the last two years. Two years is not a long year-time when compared with her seventeen years’ teaching life. (个人觉得这个质疑得不是很好,毕竟每个事业都是一个过程.)What about the previous conditions of the other fifteen years of Thomas? Dose she also bring to the university research grants? If there were no any records about her research, how to secure that the current two years’ research grants will be lasted forever? Are the two years’ research grants just a temporary measure to encourage her to research? Or the two years’ research grants are given to all professors to improve the overall research rather than for the reason of her outstanding research ability. Further, whether the amount of the research grants is larger remains a question. In this argument, it is only said that the research grants are higher then her salary, and if the average research grants of the whole research fields in the university has highly exceeded her research grants, then, it can not illustrate her research ability. Without rolling out these or those possibilities, the author cannot persuade me to admit her demonstrating teaching and research abilities.(这部分主要缺乏的是Thomas教授和其他教授的纵向比较,个人觉得应该作为重点反驳,好像只看见两句哦)

Even assuming that Professor Thomas has high teaching and research ability, the suggestion of promoting her to a chairperson is not so reasonable. Common senses tell that teaching and administrating is two kinds of job, quite different from each other. In spite of her excellent ability in teaching and researching, it does not mean that she will do well in being a leader, let alone the Department Chairperson. If so, the university will probably lose a good teacher and instead get a poor administrator. Without considering her other abilities, just according to her teaching and research abilities, the recommendation may be do a negative effect, for the teacher or the university.

Finally, as a good teacher and researcher, she will not choose her job merely based on the salary and job position. More important factors include the developing opportunity, being interested in research fields, the fame and reputation of the university, the comfort working environment, even more important, experimental facilities and research conditions and so forth. Hence, the author should merely take the ostensible self-interests into consideration. On the other hand, if the professor really has favored a university, of which she is very fond, can salary arise and promotion change her mind and decide to keep in? It can also not assure. To keep a good teacher and researcher, the university should take all possible factors into consideration and only then can get an effective measurement.

In sum, the author fails to assure us that the professor is really a good teacher, and also a good researcher. In addition, the suggestion is also not very practical. To support the conclusion, the author should do plenty of additional work(是否应该举几个例子什么样的additional work?).  

写得好真好!Native!尤其是连接词用的特棒,让人觉得很自然,向你学习!

charryUID: 2426204

The arguer professes that a salary raise and a promotion should be given to Professor Thomas to prevent her from leaving Elm City University. To ensure the necessities, the author cited the fact that Thomas’s classes are among the largest in the university and that her research grants has exceeded her salary during the past two years. The argument appears to be well presented, yet, close scrutiny reveals that it is far from satisfactory reasoned. (satisfactory reason) Indeed, the argument suffers from several logical flaws, (and/which) listed as follow.

Based on the fact that the classes of Professor Thomas are the largest in the university, the author concludes that Thomas gains great popularity from students. However, as we know nothing about the “classes”, we can not agree. It is entire possible that the classes are mandatory classes, that is, almost students in the university have to participate in the classes. For example, if her classes are about the fundamental theories of botany, then everyone learning about botany must study these classes (choose these classes to study) as a beginning or re-study to underpin their theoretical knowledge. In such cases, a myriad of students, no matter neither beginners nor experts(? beginners or experts), will take part in the classes. And their carving to learn knowledge is the main reason for the largest participants in Professor Thomas’s classes. Again, when there is only one professor in the university to teach these fundamental curriculums, (and) even Thomas is not very good at teaching; the students will be volunteered to take the courses to gain more knowledge which may not be gotten (acquired) by self-learning. (maybe her popularity is low)

Another evidence to prove Professor Thomas’s research ability lies in the higher research grants she has brought to the university than her salary. Yet, in this argument, the happening time is just in the last two years. Two years is not a long year-time (when) compared with her seventeen years’ teaching life. What about the previous conditions of the other fifteen years of Thomas? Dose she also bring to the university research grants? If there were no any records about her research, how to secure that the current two years’ research grants will be lasted (last) forever? Are the two years’ research grants just a temporary measure to encourage her to research? Or the two years’ research grants are given to all professors to improve the overall research rather than for the reason of her outstanding research ability. (good) Further, whether the amount of the research grants is larger remains a question. In this argument, it is only said that the research grants are (is) higher then her (annual) salary, and if the average research grants of the whole research fields in the university has highly exceeded her research grants, then, it can not illustrate her research ability. Without rolling (ruling) out these or those possibilities, the author cannot persuade me to admit her demonstrating teaching and research abilities.

Even assuming that Professor Thomas has high teaching and research ability, the suggestion of promoting her to a chairperson is not so reasonable. Common senses tell that teaching and administrating is two kinds of job, quite different from each other. In spite of her excellent ability in teaching and researching, it does not mean that she will do well in being a leader, let alone the Department Chairperson. If so, the university will probably lose a good teacher and instead get a poor administrator. Without considering her other abilities, just according to her teaching and research abilities, the recommendation maybe do a negative effect, for the teacher or the university.

Finally, as a good teacher and researcher, she will not choose her job merely based on the salary and job position. More important factors include the developing opportunity, being interested in research fields, the fame and reputation of the university, the comfort working environment, even more important, experimental facilities and research conditions and so forth. (good) Hence, the author should merely take the ostensible self-interests into consideration. On the other hand, if the professor really has favored (favors) a university, of which she is very fond, can salary arise (arising) and promotion change her mind and decide to keep in? It can also not assure. To keep a good teacher and researcher, the university should take all possible factors into consideration and only then can get an effective measurement.

In sum, the author fails to assure us that the professor is really a good teacher, and also a good researcher. In addition, the suggestion is also not very practical. To support the conclusion, the author should do plenty of additional work.

思路比较清晰，有些语言还可以再润色一下~~~