Argument140 rt860113--Hamming小组第七次

rt860113UID: 2256886

TOPIC: ARGUMENT140 - The following appearedin a report of the Committee on Faculty Promotions and Salaries at Elm CityUniversity.

"During her seventeen years as aprofessor of botany, Professor Thomas has proved herself to be well worth herannual salary of $50,000. Her classes are among the largest at the university,demonstrating her popularity among students. Moreover, the money she hasbrought to the university in research grants has exceeded her salary in each ofthe 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 raiseand promotion, we fear that Professor Thomas will leave Elm City University foranother college."
WORDS: 482          TIME: 0:48:17         DATE: 2007-1-2

In this argument, the arguer claims that Professor Thomas should receive a $10,000 raise and a promotion to Department Chairperson without which it is feared that she will leave Elm City University for another college. To justify this claim, the arguer provides the evidence that Professor Thomas is popular among students hence her classes are among the largest at the university. In addition, the arguer rely on the money ProfessorThomas brought to the university's research grants to assert her research ability. A careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless theconclusion is.

In the first place, the argument is based on a hasty generalization. The arguer describes Pro Thomas as a professor withpopularity among students only on the evidence that her classes are among thelargest ones. The possibilities leading to the large number of students in herclass are more than one. Maybe the class she teaches is one of courses manymajors oblige students to take. Moreover, the teaching ability can notreflected only by the popularity among students. Perhaps a unskilled teacher also has many students to attend his\her class for the exam of the course iseasy to pass and the credit is easy to get. Therefore, the arguer had better to provide more objective and complicit evidence to attest the Pro Thomas'teaching ability.


In the second place, the evidence cited to testify Pro Thomas's research ability is too weak. As known to all, theresearch ability relates to several elements, such as the creativity of theresearch, the practical value and high quality papers. One who can bring money to university is not certain a eligible researcher. In addition, as mentionedin the argument, she has brought money to the university in research grants has exceeded her salary in each of the last two years, however, two years is not long enough to convince me that she will go on bring money to the university compared to the last seventeen years.


Finally, there is no proof to allege that Pro Thomas will leave the university without raise and promotion. Even there commendation can not passed, the arguer still fails to make sure ProfessorThomas will leave. No evidence show that salary and promotion are important elements to Pro Thomas as determining stay or leave. Maybe Professor Thomas fevers of the environment of this university .Maybe she does not care how much money she can get at all. So it is not reasonable for the arguer to assert  ProThomas may leave without such a raise and promotion.

To conclude, this argument is not persuasive as it stands. Before we accept the conclusion, the arguer must present more facts that Professor Thomas really has demonstrated teaching andresearch abilities that deserve a raise and promotion. Moreover, the real attitude of Professor Thomas herself should be shown instead of being guessed by the arguer.

hugo010311UID: 2237388

In this argument, the arguer claims that Professor Thomas should receive a $10,000 raise and a promotion to Department Chairperson without which it is feared that she will leave Elm City University for another college. To justify this claim, the arguer provides the evidence that Professor Thomas is popular among students hence her classes are among the largest at the university. In addition, the arguer relies on the money Professor Thomas brought to the university's research grants to assert her research ability. A careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless the conclusion is.

In the first place, the argument is based on a hasty generalization. The arguer describes Pro Thomas as a professor with popularity among students only on the evidence that her classes are among the largest ones. However, the possibilities leading to the large number of students in her class are more than one. Maybe the class she teaches is one of courses many majors oblige students to take. Moreover, the teaching ability can not reflected only by the popularity among students. Perhaps an unskilled teacher also has many students to attend his\her class for the exam of the course is easy to pass and the credit is easy to get. Therefore, the arguer had better to provide more objective and complicit evidence to attest the Pro Thomas' teaching ability.

In the second place, the evidence cited to testify Pro Thomas's research ability is too weak. As known to all, the research ability relates to several elements, such as the creativity of the research, the practical value and high quality papers. One who can bring money to university is not certain an eligible researcher. In addition, as mentioned in the argument, she has brought money to the university in research grants has exceeded her salary in each of the last two years, however, two years is not long enough to convince me that she will go on bring money to the university compared to the last seventeen years.

Finally, there is no proof to allege that Pro Thomas will leave the university without raise and promotion. Even if there commendation can not pass, the arguer still fails to make sure Professor Thomas will leave. No evidence shows that salary and promotion are important elements to Pro Thomas as determining stay or leave. Maybe Professor Thomas fevers of the environment of this university .Maybe she does not care how much money she can get at all. So it is unreasonable for the arguer to assert   Pro Thomas may leave without such a raise and promotion.

To conclude, this argument is not persuasive as it stands. Before we accept the conclusion, the arguer must present more facts that Professor Thomas really has demonstrated teaching and research abilities that deserve a raise and promotion. Moreover, the real attitude of Professor Thomas herself should be shown instead of being guessed by the arguer.

除一些小错外，文章整体很不错，加油！

[ 本帖最后由 hugo010311 于 2007-1-6 11:37 编辑 ]

rt860113UID: 2256886

恩，谢谢批改！:)一起加油！