argument140 [Jet小组]第十二次作业

benjamin07UID: 2310909

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."
WORDS: 577          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2008-1-27

In this argument, the arguer recommends that Professor Thomas should receive a $10,000 raise and a promotion to Department Chairperson, or she would otherwise leave Elm City University for another college. To support the recommendation, the arguer points out that Professor Thomas's classes are the largest at the university, and her research grants has exceeded her salary in each of the last two years. However, a careful examination would reveal how groundless the argument is.

In the first place, the arguer fails to provide sound evidence to prove that Professor Thomas has demonstrated teaching and research abilities. The fact that her classes are among the largest at the universities does not necessarily mean that she is the most popular and excellent teacher at the university. It is entirely possible that the course she teaches is the compulsory and is the largest at the university. If so, then the arguer can not safely that it could demonstrate her teaching ability. Another fact is that the money she has brought to the university in research grants has exceeded her salary in each of the last two years says little about her research ability. The arguer must provide information concerning her research results and contribution. For example, how many valuable papers she has overtly published in the Journal, or how many large projects she has finished to demonstrate her research ability, without which we can not make a direct intuition that Professor Thomas has demonstrated her research abilities, thus making the assumption highly suspect.

In the second place, the assumption that we should raise the salary of Professor Thomas is unfounded. The arguer fails to provide the reason why the salary of her has to be raised. Some other factors should be taken into account when considering this question. For example, how about are the rules of the Elm City University relating the salary system? how about are salaries of other faculties? It is possible that if the university raises her salary to the number stated, other faculties who are more excellent than her would receive lower salary than her, which is unfair and unreasonable at the university. If so, then the arguer can not unreasonable draw the conclusion.

Even granted that Professor Thomas is well worth receiving a $10,000, it is still unreasonable to draw the conclusion that she should be promoted to Department Chairperson.  The arguer should take into account other factors that might affect a person to be a Department Chairperson. Besides excellent research and teaching ability, the ability of organization and management is more important, however, the arguer fails to provide information to prove that Professor Thomas has these kinds of ability. What is more, being a Department Chairperson would affect her research and teaching stuff. Therefore, the conclusion that Elm City University should promote her to be a Department Chairperson is unfounded.

Finally, no evidence has been offered to demonstrate that Professor Thomas would leave Elm City University. It is entirely possible that she likes the university very much and she is satisfied with her salary. Without ruling out these possibilities, we can not trust the arguer's assumption.

In sum, the argument is based on unfounded reasoning. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer has to provide more concrete information concerning the ability of teaching and research ability of Professor Thomas. In addition, what is more important factor is that the arguer must show evidence why the university should raise her salary without which would undermine the argument.