argument140 (gogogo小组)

neverstopcowUID: 2149686

140.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."

中文提纲：1.简要复述题目愿意，概括出三点笔者要给教授升值加薪的原因。
          2.T教授的班级使全校最大的不代表他受欢迎
          3.研究经费是过去两年不代表以后都会有
          4.可能教授根本不愿当系主任。
          5.总结，需要更多的证据如发表的文章和学生的意见等等，还要看教授的意愿

  In this report, the arguer recommends that Elm City University should give Ms Thomas, a professor of botany for seventeen years already, a $10000 raise and a promotion to. To justify the recommendation, the arguer provides that Ms Thomas is very popular among students because her classes are the largest at the university. In addition, the research money she has brought to the university is so much that has exceeded her salary in the past two years. Finally, the arguer also raises his worry that Professor Thomas will leave the university if the salary raise and promotion are not offered. A careful examination on this argument would reveal that the recommendation made by the arguer is groundless at all.

   At the first place, the reasoning that Professor Thomas is popular among students is open to doubt. The mere fact that her classes are the largest at the university is insufficient evidence to conclude that she is a popular professor. Maybe her subject is compulsory; every student in the college should go to her class. If the students choose this subject by force rather than their willingness, Ms Thomas is not a good teacher at all.

   Secondly, we can not conclude that Professor Thomas has eminent research ability only by the grant money she has brought to the university. Maybe the past two years is an aberration, she could not often attract so much money. Perhaps she did not accomplish her research objective or she could not raise a good research result in the past two years, then she was unable to bring so much grant money any more in the future.

   Finally, we can see no relations between a good professor and a good Department Chairperson. The business of a Department Chairperson is much busier and more boring. If Ms Thomas is not voluntary to preside over the department, I’m afraid the university will have an incompetent Department Chairperson instead of an effective professor. I think a good professor favors a good research environment more than the substance condition.

   In conclusion, the committee’s recommendation is ill-founded. To strengthen it we need more evidence to prove that Professor Thomas is effective both in teaching and research, for example, some research paper published in significant journals and a survey among students is more persuasive. If she indeed deserves to be rewarded, we should clarify what is the professor want to be provided.

400字

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-12-24 at 11:16 ]

orange0770UID: 2122654

In this report, the arguer recommends that Elm City University should give Ms Thomas, a professor of botany for seventeen years already, a $10000 raise and a promotion to（Department Chairman）. To justify the recommendation, the arguer provides that Ms Thomas is very popular among students because her classes are the largest at the university. In addition, the research money she has brought to the university is so much that (has 应该有主语，应是that that has …) has exceeded her salary in the past two years. Finally, the arguer also raises his worry that Professor Thomas will leave the university if the salary raise and promotion are not offered. A careful examination on this argument would reveal that the recommendation made by the arguer is groundless at all.

   At the first place, the reasoning that Professor Thomas is popular among students is open to doubt. The mere fact that her classes are the largest at the university is insufficient evidence to conclude that she is a popular professor. Maybe her subject is compulsory; every student in the college should go to her class. If the students choose this subject by force rather than their willingness, Ms Thomas is not a good teacher at all. (课程是compulsory, 不能说明Thomas popular, 不过也不能证明她不是个好老师吧) 我没想到你的这个理由，compulsory class 很有说服力。

   Secondly, we （不是we conclude, 而是the arguer ）can not conclude that Professor Thomas has eminent research ability only by the grant money she has brought to the university. Maybe the past two years is an aberration(中心意思是“与命令、指示或期待的结果相背离,这个词还有越轨、精神失常的意思， 改成exception), she could not often attract （改成raise / collect）so much money. Perhaps she did not accomplish her research objective or she could not raise (obtain a good result )a good research result in the past two years, then she was unable to bring so much grant money any more in the future( 去掉一个).（这段有点散，第一局指出拉经费不等于研究能力，但后面的论述仅是怀疑其拉经费的能力，没有再提及于研究能力的关系，后面的论述没有对主体句作出很好的支撑。）

   Finally, we can see no relations between a good professor and a good Department Chairperson. The business of a Department Chairperson is much busier and more boring. If Ms Thomas is not voluntary to preside over the department, I’m afraid （这个句子不够客观，改成it is possible that ）the university will have an incompetent Department Chairperson instead of an effective professor.（文中没提到Thomas 的管理才能，因此即使她主动申请也不一定能胜任吧） I think a good professor favors a good research environment more than the substance condition.

   In conclusion, the committee’s recommendation is ill-founded. To strengthen it we need more evidence to prove that Professor Thomas is effective both in teaching and research, for example, some research paper published in significant journals and a survey among students is（are） more persuasive. If she indeed deserves to be rewarded(deserve the reward, 这样简洁一些), we should clarify （clarify 是详细说明的意思，你是否想表达“弄清楚”这个意思呢，如果是应该用understand）what is the professor want to be provided.

文章整体思路清晰，而其找出了主要错误，个人感觉逻辑没有太大问题，如果3、4段能扩展说得具体一点会更好。:)
语言上句式比较简单，缺乏变化，这也是我们共同的问题，所以一起在语言表达上多下功夫吧。:victory: