Argument140 【米国有米】小组 第四次作业,请猛批

ernest81888UID: 2247639

Argument 140

Conclusion –we recommend that she receive a $10,000 raise and a promotion to Dept Chairperson.

提纲
开头—让步式开头

错误1---Causal oversimplification; 她的班级是本校最大的班级之一，就说明她在学生中间的受欢迎程度高,即使说明了她受欢迎程度高，也不一定是因为她教学水平高

错误2---Hasty generalization过去的两年里超过，不能能表明以后都能超过，即使超过了她的年薪，同样也不能表明她的研究能力很强。

错误3---即使提升和加薪 10K 也未必能留住老师


In this argument the author recommends that in order to keep Prof Thomas in Elm City University (ECU), we should give Thomas a $10,000 raise and a promotion to Department Chairperson. To support his recommend, the speaker points out Professor Thomas’ outstanding teaching and researching abilities in ECU. At first glance, the argument appears to be somehow plausible, but further reflection reveals that suffer from at least 3 logical flaws.

Firstly, the arguer commits a fallacy of causal oversimplification in assuming that her class among the largest at the university is all that required for her popularity among students. While the big class is an important element in determining her popularity, it is hardly the only one. To establish a general causal relationship between big class and popularity, other factors that could result in her great popularity should be considered and eliminated. For example, perhaps the class taught by Prof. Thomas is the only one in botany, which is fundamental and necessary for the student. Thus students have no choice to elect others but only take Thomas’s lesson. The author’s failure to investigate or even consider other possible explanation for Prof. Thomas’s larger class renders the conclusion based upon it highly suspect. Even if Prof Thomas popularity among students is representative, it is still highly doubtable that it reasons Thomas’s high teaching skill, possibility exists that it is because Prof. Thomas’s loosed examine rule helped raise her popularity in student.

Secondly, another problem with the argument involves the cited last 2 years research grants which have exceeded her salary. However, this is none necessarily the case. In my view, the author provides no evidence that Prof. Thomas will still bring great research grants in future as she did in last 2 years. The reason is questionable because everything might be changed by times, and the mere overpasses fact is insufficient to establish the claim. Thus the speaker’s using Post.hoc assumes to reach the conclusion of Thomas’s good research ability is groundless.

At last, I am also afraid of the salary raise and position promotion can prevent Prof. Thomas from leaving ECU. 17 years teaching in a same university might be a reason. Maybe Thomas wants to have a new challenge for her work as well as life. To make the Prof Thomas stay in ECU, I suggest to firstly ECU should have a talk with her before finally decided to execute the speaker’s recommend.

In sum, the recommend is not well supported. To bolster it, the author must provide sufficient evidence that Prof. T definitely has the ability in not only teaching but research as well. Also, in order to better assess the strength of his recommendation, it would be helpful to make a fully investigation whether 10,000 salary raise and the mentioned position promotion could be effective.

[ 本帖最后由 ernest81888 于 2006-12-11 00:41 编辑 ]

foroneUID: 2273159

In this argument the author recommends that in order to keep Prof Thomas in Elm City University (ECU), we should give Thomas a $10,000 raise and a promotion to Department Chairperson. To support his recommend[这是动词], the speaker points out Professor Thomas’ outstanding teaching and researching abilities in ECU. At [a]first glance, the argument appears to be somehow plausible, but further reflection reveals that [--缺主语啊]suffer from at least 3 logical flaws.

Firstly, the arguer commits a fallacy of causal oversimplification in assuming that her class among the largest at the university is all that required for her popularity among students. While the big class is an important element in determining her popularity, it is hardly the only one. To establish a general causal relationship between big class and popularity, other factors that could result in her great popularity should be considered and eliminated. For example, perhaps the class taught by Prof. Thomas is the only one in botany, which is fundamental and necessary for the student. Thus students have no choice to elect others but only[no choice to do sth but to do sth] take Thomas’s lesson. The author’s failure to investigate or even consider other possible explanation for Prof. Thomas’s larger class renders the conclusion based upon it highly suspect. Even if Prof Thomas popularity among students is representative, it is still highly doubtable that it reasons Thomas’s high teaching skill, possibility exists that it is because Prof. Thomas’s loosed examine rule helped raise her popularity in student[这句话语病多而且不顺,不如直接说她的课easy to pass].

Secondly, another problem with the argument involves the cited last 2 years research grants which have exceeded her salary. However, this is none necessarily[not necessary] the case. In my view, the author provides no evidence that Prof. Thomas will still bring great research grants in future as she did in last 2 years. The reason is questionable because everything might be changed by times[by time], and the mere overpasses[这不是形容词] fact is insufficient to establish the claim. Thus the speaker’s using Post.hoc assumes[这句话别扭] to reach the conclusion of Thomas’s [Thomas showing]good research ability is groundless.

At last, I am also afraid of the salary raise and position promotion can prevent Prof. Thomas from leaving ECU. 17 years teaching in a same university might be a reason[病句]. Maybe Thomas wants to have a new challenge for her work as well as life. To make the Prof Thomas stay in ECU, I suggest to[去掉] firstly ECU should have a talk with her before finally decided to execute the speaker’s recommend.

In sum, the recommend is not well supported. To bolster it, the author must provide sufficient evidence that Prof. T definitely has the ability in not only teaching but research as well. Also, in order to better assess the strength of his recommendation, it would be helpful to make a fully investigation whether 10,000 salary raise and the mentioned position promotion could be effective.
作者语言用词语法方面上急需加强啊