Argument140 ［加州阳光］第8次作业 sandy

sandyfriendUID: 157486

TOPIC: ARGUMENT140 - 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."
WORDS: 473          TIME: 1:08:27          DATE: 2006-7-8

The argument is well-presented but not thoroughly well-reasoned. By analyzing the teaching and research abilities of Pro.Thomas and being afraid of lose a great teacher and researcher, the Elm City University wants to promote her status and salaries. The argument for faculty and salaries promotion seems logical.

However, the arguments can not provide enough information to convince us that the conclusion is validity. To begin with, the committee is failing to consider the correlation between the largest class which Pro.Thomas taught at the University and her popularity among the campus. There are many alternatives to make her class become the largest one, such as the botany is the largest subject in the university with the most students; for its garden’surroudings of the university , a lot of people like to attend the class to learn more about the nature or only the Pro.Thomas teach the botany which is a compulsory course.  Liking the condition mention above, all attend the course Pro.thomas taught, not justify that she are favor by students. Hence, insufficient evidence is provided to support the great teaching ability of Pro.Thomas.

Also, the evidence that her research grants has exceeded her salary in each of the last two years can not prove her capability in the research work. Since no any detail is showed, we can not determine her achievement in research. For example, the last two years the botany tends to be the best periods for research grant and average research grants for a scientist in the country is about $150,000 per years. So the research grant for Pro.Thomas is less than the average level, proving her incapacity in research.  In sum, more detailed information is needed to offer to support the arguments.

Last but no the least, the committee are hurry to conclude the promotion. First, no every one can be competent for this position, the Department Chairperson. Is Pro.Thomas with perfect leadership?  No information is provided.  Maybe Pro.Thomas is a successful teacher and researcher and so on, except a well leader.  Second, we may not be fear of lost Pro. Thomas, since even not any promotion, the salary and the research condition which the University provided for are the best in the country and not any other country can offer better condition.  We should make sure that whether the urgent need to promotion.

Overall, the conclusion reached in the argument lacks credibility since the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the arguer claims. To make it more convincing, the arguer should provide more information concerning about Pro. Thomas's teaching and research ability. To better evaluate the argument, we need more evidence to justify the rationality for promotion. Otherwise the argument is logically unacceptable.