argument140

jenniferganUID: 2443583

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: 458          TIME: 00:38:58          DATE: 2008-4-1 16:55:39


In this report, the arguer claims that the professor Thomas in Elm City University are worthy of more salary and be promoted to be the Department Chairperson. To justify the claim, the arguer points out that Professor Thomas's classes are among the largest at the university. In addition, she has brought to the university in research grants which exceeded her salary in each of the last two years. In my point of view, the arguer neglect alternatives, and the argument is dubious for the following reasons. I will discuss them in turn.

To begin with, the arguer fails to ensure whether Professor Thomas is popularity among students. The arguer just provides the proof that her classes are among the largest at the university. Perhaps she teaches many classes, and the quantity of the students of course large. Perhaps her courses are the indispensable and important courses, so that every student has to take the courses. If in the case, I don't agree that she is popular among students.

In addition, the arguer mentions that she has brought to the university in research grants which has exceeded her salary in each of the two year of the last year. The arguer does not consider several possibilities. First, maybe the research grants should contribute to all the faculties of the department, not only she. Second, maybe the grants will not be brought by her in the next years. Only two years is not a large rate to seventeen years in the university.


Moreover, the arguer does not consider whether Professor Thomas is capable of the position of Department Chairperson. A professor who is good at teaching does not mean that she also good at to be chairperson. The function of teacher and chairman is different. Perhaps she is not competent for chairman.

Furthermore, the arguer neglect whether she is willing leave their university. Perhaps she does not want to leave at all because the environment of the university is excellent, perhaps she has fall in love with the university for working so many years. As time passed, she must be emotional to the university.

In conclusion, the arguer does not supply many necessary conditions. To strengthen it, the arguer should collect more detailed information about Professor Thomas. He or she should do a survey to the students to indicate that whether she war popular among students. And, the arguer should also mention whether there are companies wish to cooperate with Professor Thomas. What's more, to evaluate the capability of Professor Thomas to show us that she is capable to be the chairman. Finally, the arguer should also talk with her to prove whether she is planned to leave the university. Only in this way can the arguer persuade me.