ARGUMENT140[0710G +U Aug小组]第14次作业

571633UID: 2333480

TOPIC: ARGUMENT140 - 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."

Citing Professor Thomas's class is among the largest at the university and she has brought more money to the university in research grants than her salary, the arguer suggests the Committee on Faculty Promotions and Salaries at Elm City University should raise her salary and promote her to Department Chairperson. However, further reflection tells me that the arguer ignores many practical problems.

First of all, the evidence that Professor Thomas's classes are among the largest at the university can hardly lend strong support to the conclusion that she is popular among the students. For example, there are many students in the university while only a few teachers, therefore the classes should be large enough. Consequently, in order to convince us the writer should provide sufficient information rather than simply tell us she is popular among the students.

What's more, it is said that the professor has brought more money to the university in research grants than her salary, while it is also the reason why the university should provide her a promotion. Nevertheless, this reason also can hardly provide direct support to the conclusion. For instance, whether the money spends in the research depends on the environment of the university, the equipment, the students' ability and so forth. So I do not ascribe the perversity on my part but to the inconsequence of the problem which is deficient in common sense that I can hardly quite reconcile myself to the lesson and the arguer should do a research to tell us the truth.

Quite apart from the logistic problems, there is no evidence that Professor Thomas will leave Elm City University without a raise and promotion. So it is doubtful that there is a necessity to raise her salary and promote her to the Department Chairperson. Consequently any decision aim at solving the problem of her promotion should base on more thorough and comprehensive investigation in order to gather sufficient data to identify the actual cause of the problem.

Simply put, the arguer's recommendation is not well presented because it is based on certain a series of doubtful assumptions that render it untenable as it stands. Before we can accept it, the arguer should provide more information - through a local survey or study - that whether the professor should receive a higher salary and a promotion. What's more, the arguer should give more information about the class she teaches rather than relying on this slim information.

xiefen0223UID: 2301911

TOPIC: ARGUMENT140 - 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."

Citing Professor Thomas's class is among the largest at the university and she has brought more money to the university in research grants than her salary, the arguer suggests the Committee on Faculty Promotions and Salaries at Elm City University should raise her salary and promote her to Department Chairperson. However, further reflection tells me that the arguer ignores many practical problems.(简短有力)

First of all, the evidence that Professor Thomas's classes are among the largest at the university can hardly lend strong support to the conclusion that she is popular among the students. For example, there are many students in the university while only a few teachers （in batany）, therefore the classes should be large enough. Consequently, in order to convince us the writer should provide sufficient information rather than simply tell us she is popular among the students.(再进一步说这不能证明她的教学能力，直接反驳到作者的论点)

What's more, it is said that the professor has brought more money to the university in research grants than her salary, while it is also the reason why the university should provide her a promotion. （作者没做这样的conclusion吧，他是根据popular class和grants来说要加薪和提职的，没有专门指名grants是提职的理由。）Nevertheless, this reason also can hardly provide direct support to the conclusion. For instance, whether the money spends in the research depends on the environment of the university, the equipment, the students' ability and so forth. So I do not ascribe the perversity on my part but to the inconsequence of the problem which is deficient in common sense that I can hardly quite reconcile myself to the lesson and the arguer should do a research to tell us the truth.

Quite apart from the logistic problems, there is no evidence that Professor Thomas will leave Elm City University without a raise and promotion. So it is doubtful that there is a necessity to raise her salary and promote her to the Department Chairperson.（哈哈，闲话一下，好残酷啊～能留下就不考虑提别人工资） Consequently any decision aim at solving the problem of her promotion should base on more thorough and comprehensive investigation in order to gather sufficient data to identify the actual cause of the problem.

Simply put, the arguer's recommendation is not well presented because it is based on certain a series of doubtful assumptions that render it untenable as it stands. Before we can accept it, the arguer should provide more information - through a local survey or study - that whether the professor should receive a higher salary and a promotion. What's more, the arguer should give more information about the class she teaches rather than relying on this slim information.

呵呵，继续加油了。。

最近开始上班了，作业改迟了～抱歉了。。