Argument140 [中华龙第七次作业]

Ammmy2000UID: 2265680

Argument 140

The following appeared in a report of the Committee on Faculty Promotions and Salaries at ElmCityUniversity.

"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 ElmCityUniversity for another college."

====================================================================1. There is no evidence to support the idea that Professor Thomas has demonstrated teaching and research abilities.
2. We are never informed of the information about the possibility that she will leave our school.
3. The capacity of the present Chairperson of Department is little considered.
====================================================================

In this report, the author recommends that Professor Thomas should receive a $10,000 raise and a promotion to Chairman. To support his recommendation, he cites that she has demonstrated teaching and research capacities. Moreover, the arguer points out that she will probably leave his university if she doesn't receive salary raise and a promotion. Clearly scrutiny about these facts, however, reveals that no of them lends credible support to convince us.

To begin with, there is no evidence to support the idea that she has excellent teaching and research abilities. Firstly, the number of students attending her classes is little attributable to her popularity, demonstrating her predominant teaching skills. Perhaps only Thomas teaches botany in this school, or perhaps botany is the compulsive lessons for all students, or perhaps Thomas marks higher than other teachers so that learners are prone to attend her class. Without ruling out these possible reasons, we hardly assure of her teaching ability. Secondly, the fact that the money in research grants she has brought has surpassed her salary for last two years hardly proves her research capacity. It is just as likely that the money other professors brought also exceeded their salaries. Absent more detailed information about it, the author couldn't confidently make such conclusion.

Moreover, we are never informed about the evidence, substantiating the assumption that she will leave school. Maybe she is satisfied with her current working conditions and never thinks about changing it, or maybe there is no other college has the tendency to employing her. Never thinking about such possibilities, the arguer fails to bolster his assumption thoroughly.

In addition, since little information about the present Department Chairman and management capacities of Thomas is supplied, we couldn't know whether he is never suitable for his position or Thomas will be qualified with it. Without such information, it is possible that the present Chairman does excellent jobs and everyone satisfies his efforts, or that Thomas lacks of such abilities to manage a whole department. Unless more evidence about it is provided, can we regard the recommendation as rational.

To sum up, the report is not persuasive as it stands. To make it more convincing, the author should provide more evidence about her demonstrated teaching and research abilities. To better evaluate the argument, we also need extra information about the possibility of her leaving college, her management capacity and the situation about the present chairman.