Argument140【SWEETBOX小组】第二次作业 by 小破孩

小破孩UID: 2125288

Argument 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.

Words 609 Time: more than 1 hr

The above recommendation to give Prof. Thomas (Prof. T) a double increase of salary together with promotion to department chair to prevent her leaving is not cogent. The argument didn’t provide solid evidence to indicate her prominent teaching and research ability as well as competency to be an effective leader without even mention about her intend to leave.

First of all, the mere fact that Prof. T’s class is among the largest ones in the university doesn’t guarantee her popularity. Myriads of variables take into account the large number of students such as the bases of the course, the content of the teaching material, the availability of instructors, the grading, etc. We don’t know the students’ evaluations upon Prof. T after taking the courses. Neither did we know the hidden reasons for their enrollment. It is possible that the grading by Prof. T attract students to increase their overall GPA instead of allured by the charisma of the instructor.  It is also possible that Prof. T is teaching a compulsory course, in which case all the students in the program have to take the course to fulfill their minimum requirement. Furthermore, the course she is teaching is such a basic one that students from different backgrounds are required to take it as a pre-request to attend higher level courses. Without detail information about what orients the students to join in the course, the conclusion that Prof. T is popular is hasty.

Secondly, there is no causal relationship between the amounts of research grants and the research ability. Judging a professor’s research ability solely upon his grants is unconvincing and even ridiculous. Scientific research contains numerous paths: excellent pharmacologists discovers innovative drugs to attenuate patients’ suffering of pain, rewarding research in the applied material may synthesize stronger material to strengthen bullet proof jacket for the police, in the area of biological science, eminent researchers reveal the basic mechanism underling in the organism. The criteria to judge their significance and research ability have little to do with research grants but largely reflected by their applications, published papers, etc. Future, research process is long lasting and requires heavily input, with little progress in previous projects, one professor may results little in next year’s grant application. A longer time trend of the research grants from Prof. T may be required to substantiate her excellence.

Moreover, even of we conceded Prof. T did excel in teaching and research, whether she is a qualified chairperson and deserve the salary increase is open to doubt. Without comparison with the salary level with other professors in the university, we don’t know whether it is reasonable to give Prof. T an increase in the first place. Little did we know about the performance of other professors in the department, who may have done as well as or even better than Prof. T. If it is the case, additional increase is not only necessary but might even discourage others. As is know to all, department chairperson requires dedication to fulfill various duties, prominence in communication, excellence in leadership skills and loyalty to the university in addition to teaching and research ability, all of which is unwarranted if we promote Prof. T due to lack of evidence. Neither did the university should worry about her leave if they don’t do so, because there are even no hint showing her intend to leave.

To sum up, the argument is not well persuasive as it stands by lacking supporting detail information to show Prof. T’s prominence and competence of the salary increase and promotion. Unless more concern from Prof. T herself is provided, the recommendation of salary increase and chairperson promotion should not be adopted.

sara0522UID: 2336981

The above recommendation to give Prof. Thomas (Prof. T) a double increase of salary together with promotion to department chair to prevent her leaving is not cogent. The argument didn’t provide solid evidence to indicate her prominent teaching and research ability as well as competency to be an effective leader without even mention(ing) about her intend(vt? plan) to leave.

First of all, the mere fact that Prof. T’s class is among the largest ones in the university doesn’t guarantee her popularity. Myriads of variables take into account the large number of students such as the bases of the course, the content of the teaching material, the availability of instructors, the grading, etc. We don’t know the students’ evaluations upon Prof. T after taking the courses. Neither did we know the hidden reasons for their enrollment. It is possible that the grading by Prof. T attract students to increase their overall GPA instead of allured by the charisma of the instructor.  It is also possible that Prof. T is teaching a compulsory course, in which case all the students in the program have to take the course to fulfill their minimum requirement. Furthermore, the course she is teaching is such a basic one that students from different backgrounds are required to take it as a pre-request to attend higher level courses. Without detail information about what orients the students to join in the course, the conclusion that Prof. T is popular is hasty. (展得很开)

Secondly, there is no causal relationship between the amounts of research grants and the research ability. Judging a professor’s research ability solely upon his grants is unconvincing and even ridiculous. Scientific research contains numerous paths: excellent pharmacologists discovers innovative drugs to attenuate patients’ suffering of pain, rewarding research in the applied material may synthesize stronger material to strengthen bullet proof jacket for the police, in the area of biological science, eminent researchers reveal the basic mechanism underling in the organism. (都是好例子,但是有可能这位教授科研能力超群,才获得了极大的赞助,而且以上的例子未必就不需要雄厚的资金为保障,再说清楚点加上这么好的例子就不愁了)The criteria to judge their significance and research ability have little to do with research grants but largely reflected by their applications, published papers, etc. Future, research process is long lasting and requires heavily input, with little progress in previous projects, one professor may results little in next year’s grant application. A longer time trend of the research grants from Prof. T may be required to substantiate her excellence.

Moreover, even of(if) we conceded Prof. T did excel(语法有点小问题) in teaching and research, whether she is a qualified chairperson and deserve the salary increase is open to doubt. Without comparison with the salary level with other professors in the university, we don’t know whether it is reasonable to give Prof. T an increase in the first place. Little did we know about the performance of other professors in the department, who may have done as well as or even better than Prof. T. If it is the case, additional increase is not only necessary but might even discourage others. As is know to all, department chairperson requires dedication to fulfill various duties, prominence in communication, excellence in leadership skills and loyalty to the university in addition to teaching and research ability, all of which is unwarranted if we promote Prof. T due to lack of evidence. Neither did the university should worry about her leave if they don’t do so, because there are even no hint showing her intend to leave.

To sum up, the argument is not well persuasive as it stands by lacking supporting detail information to show Prof. T’s prominence and competence of the salary increase and promotion. Unless more concern from Prof. T herself is provided, the recommendation of salary increase and chairperson promotion should not be adopted.
看过LZ第一次作业的ARGU,真不错,而且发现LZ已经形成一定的魔版了,用得很自如~~~ 学习

jiangyue011UID: 2340595

The above recommendation to give Prof. Thomas (Prof. T) a double increase of salary together with promotion to department chair to prevent her leaving is not cogent. The argument didn’t provide solid evidence to indicate her prominent teaching and research ability as well as competency to be an effective leader without even mention (mentioning) about her intend (intention) to leave.

First of all, the mere fact that Prof. T’s class is among the largest ones in the university doesn’t guarantee her popularity. Myriads of variables take into account (这似乎有点问题) the large number of students such as the bases of the course, the content of the teaching material, the availability of instructors, the grading, etc. We don’t know the students’ evaluations upon Prof. T after taking the courses. Neither did we know the hidden reasons for their enrollment. It is possible that the grading by Prof. T attract students to increase their overall GPA instead of allured by the charisma of the instructor.(这应该还是用主动语态以使前后一致了)  It is also possible that Prof. T is teaching a compulsory course, in which case all the students in the program have to take the course to fulfill their minimum requirement. Furthermore(这点也是表示有可能是这样,加上点推测语气是不是好点), the course she is teaching is such a basic one that students from different backgrounds are required to take it as a pre-request to attend higher level courses. Without detail information about what orients the students to join in the course, the conclusion that Prof. T is popular is hasty. (向你学习怎么深入的展开哈)

Secondly, there is no causal relationship between the amounts of research grants and the research ability. Judging a professor’s research ability solely upon his (偶觉得处于人权考虑,还是要用his/her)grants is unconvincing and even ridiculous. Scientific research contains numerous paths: excellent pharmacologists discovers innovative drugs to attenuate patients’ suffering of pain, rewarding research in the applied material may synthesize stronger material to strengthen bullet proof jacket for the police, in the area of biological science, eminent researchers reveal the basic mechanism underling in the organism. The criteria to judge their significance and research ability have little to do with research grants but largely reflected by their applications, published papers, etc. Future, (further)research process is long lasting and requires heavily input, with little progress in previous projects, one professor may results(result)little in next year’s grant application. A longer time trend (似乎这有点欠通顺)of the research grants from Prof. T may be required to substantiate her excellence.

Moreover, even of we conceded (concede) Prof. T did() excel in teaching and research, whether she is a qualified chairperson and deserve()the salary increase is open to doubt. Without comparison with the salary level with other professors in the university, we don’t know whether it is reasonable to give Prof. T an increase in the first place. Little did we know about the performance of other professors in the department, who may have done as well as or even better than Prof. T. If it is the case, additional increase is not only necessary but might even discourage others. As is know to all, department chairperson requires dedication to fulfill various duties, prominence in communication, excellence in leadership skills and loyalty to the university in addition to teaching and research ability, all of which is unwarranted if we promote Prof. T due to lack of evidence. Neither did the university should worry about her leave if they don’t do so, because there are even no hint showing her intend(intention) to leave.

To sum up, the argument is not well persuasive as it stands by lacking supporting detail information to show Prof. T’s prominence and competence of the salary increase and promotion. Unless more concern from Prof. T herself is provided, the recommendation of salary increase and chairperson promotion should not be adopted.
写得很好的,思维很好,分析非常到位.感觉你的阿狗是强5弱6的思路和分数,很不错,继续加油.

小破孩UID: 2125288

今天终于有时间仔细读了大家的意见~~~好详细哦,呵呵
虽然自己检查了一遍但是好有好多笔误,抱歉抱歉
而且发现一些长犯的毛病~~~多谢啦