ARGUMENT140 [Victors]小组第四次作业 by jennetrj

jennetrjUID: 2275453

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."

90 min    661 words

In this argument, the author recommends the committee on Faculty Promotions and Salaries at Elm City University to give Professor Thomas, professor of botany, a promotion to Department Chairperson and a $10,000 raise in salary. To justify this recommendation, the author points out that Professor Thomas' class is one of the most popular courses at the university and the research grants she brought to the university in each of last two years overweighed her salary. Moreover, the author claims that if the committee fails to accept this recommendation Professor Thomas would leave for another university. At first glance, the argument seems to be somehow plausible, but close scrutiny reveals several flaws in it.

To begin with, the author unfairly assumes that students attend Professor Thomas' class for her supreme teaching ability. No evidence showed in the passage to support it. It is totally possible that botany is one of the requisite courses of freshmen and she is the only teacher provides the course. Or perhaps she always gives better grades to the students than other professors so that any students would like to attend her class in order to get better score easily. Without eliminating or even considering such possibilities, the author could not convince me to accept the assumption that Professor Thomas has better teaching ability.

Furthermore, there are problems with author's conclusion that Professor Thomas demonstrates research ability merely based on the fact that she brought grants to the university for research work. First, the information about the funds she recruited is too vague to be informative. There's no indication about how much was the money she got for university's research work and what is the percentage of the total. Maybe she brought $60,000 each year for school while the total number of funds reached 7 millions. Besides, if it is true that she could recruit more money for the university in last two years, no promise could be made that the same thing will happen in the future. Maybe next year philanthropists would like to donate for elementary education, or perhaps the donors whom Professor Thomas got the funds from might go to financial problems. Even if Professor Thomas has the ability to get most part of school's research funds, it doesn't necessarily mean that she has research ability. Maybe being a convivial person, she is able to raise funds for research, university administration or any other form of grants, however, this is hardly the indication of research ability. Perhaps she could serve as a good teacher in the class but has little ability to lead a group in research. Or she might be a good tutor to inspire students but seldom has original ideas in her field. Either scenario, if true, would serve to undermine the assumption that Professor Thomas has the research ability.

Finally, the author provides no evidence to ensure us if it is necessary for the university to give Professor Thomas the promotion and a raise in salary and whether she will leave for other schools. Maybe she showed great loyalty to the university during her service in the school and whatever she receives has no relate to that, such raise of salary might even be considered as humiliation to her. Until the author proves the needs for committee to carry out the recommendation, the recommendation could not be taken seriously.

In sum, the argument is groundless as it stands. To consolidate it, the author should provide more evidence--maybe by polls among college students-- to show that Professor Thomas' well performance in teaching attracts large amounts of students to attend her class. In addition, the author should include more information about her academic achievements, other than the funds she recruited for the university, to confirm her research ability. To better assess it, we need to know if it is necessary for the committee to raise the salary for Professor Thomas and give her a promotion in order to remain her in the university.

coraoneUID: 2233021

这几天学校事情有点多，手下了先，抓紧时间改完我就发上来