argument169 [7\8\910] 第十一次作业

thepopdjUID: 2517220

169The following appeared in a letter from a department chairperson to the president of Pierce University.

"Some studies conducted by Bronston College, which is also located in a small town, reveal that both male and female professors are happier living in small towns when their spouses are also employed in the same geographic area. Therefore, in the interest of attracting the most gifted teachers and researchers to our faculty and improving the morale of our entire staff, we at Pierce University should offer employment to the spouse of each new faculty member we hire. Although we cannot expect all offers to be accepted or to be viewed as an ideal job offer, the money invested in this effort will clearly be well spent because, if their spouses have a chance of employment, new professors will be more likely to accept our offers."

字数：480

In this argument, the author concludes that Pierce University would attract the most gifted teachers and researchers, while they provide chances of employment for their spouses, and he assumes that the money invested is well spent. To support this conclusion, the author cites a study that professors are happier living in small towns when their spouses are also employed in the same area. I find this argument unsubstantiated on several grounds.

First of all, I am not well convinced by this study that professors prefer to live in small town with their spouses' employment in the same place, because the author provides no more evidence that the condition of the area, pierce University nearby, is same as those of others where Bronston college studied. It is entirely possible that in other small towns chance of employment is so limited that professors like to living there only when their spouses are also employed in that town. However, in their town there are adequate jobs which make teachers and their spouses not be afraid of lacking employment. As a result of it, the author's suggestion that their university should provide chance of employment for the spouses of teachers is entirely redundant. Therefore, without ruling out this possibility I can not be convinced that offering employment is a good idea.

In the second place, admittedly the area where Pierce University is located have the same condition of others, but the suggestion of offering chances of employment can not surely attract the most gifted teachers and researchers to this university. Obviously, the best teachers would require a good circumstance and reward of job. On the one hand, perhaps condition of the author's university is too dissatisfactory to absorb the most gifted teachers and researchers. On this condition, the suggestion of offering employment for teachers' spouses is worthless. On the other hand, it is possible that the university has no more money to too much gifted teachers whose rewards are especially high. Lacking overthrowing these assumptions, the author's suggestion should still be dubious.

Finally, even though the university can attract the most gifted teachers by suggestion of the author, his assertion that the money invested this effort would be well spent is also unconvincing. Perhaps the investment of offering chance of employment is larger than the profit made by the attracted gifted teachers. Besides, there is a possibility that this university has already got many gifted teachers, so attracting of other good teachers is useless. Therefore, I would not be persuaded until the author provides more evidence that this investment is well spent.

To sum up, this argument fails to claim that the university would attract gifted teachers through offering chance of employment for teachers' spouses. To make is stronger, the author should provide more evidence that offering employment is a good method to attract best teachers and researchers, and this investment is well spent.

1001storyUID: 2516918

In this argument, the author concludes that Pierce University would attract the most gifted teachers and researchers, while they(指代不是很清楚，学校应该是it?) provide chances of employment for their spouses, and he assumes that the money invested （in） is well spent. To support this conclusion, the author cites a study that professors are happier living in small towns when their spouses are also employed in the same area. I find this argument unsubstantiated on several grounds.

First of all, I am not well convinced by this study that professors prefer to live in small town with their spouses' employment in the same place, because the author provides no more evidence that the condition of the area, pierce University nearby, is same as those of others where Bronston college studied. It is entirely possible that in other small towns chance of employment is so limited that professors like to living there only when their spouses are also employed in that town. However, in their town there are adequate jobs which make teachers and their spouses not be afraid of lacking employment. As a result of it, the author's suggestion that their university should provide chance of employment for the spouses of teachers is entirely redundant. Therefore, without ruling out this possibility I can not be convinced that offering employment is a good idea.

In the second place, admittedly the area where Pierce University is located have the same condition of others(Broston college?), but the suggestion of offering chances of employment can not surely attract the most gifted teachers and researchers to this university. Obviously, the best teachers would require a good circumstance and reward of job. On the one hand, perhaps condition of the author's university is too dissatisfactory(指那一方面呢？) to absorb the most gifted teachers and researchers. On this condition, the suggestion of offering employment for teachers' spouses is worthless. On the other hand, it is possible that the university has no more money to too much gifted teachers whose rewards are especially high. Lacking overthrowing these assumptions, the author's suggestion should still be dubious.

Finally, even though the university can attract the most gifted teachers by suggestion of the author, his assertion that the money invested this effort would be well spent is also unconvincing. Perhaps the investment of offering chance of employment is larger than the profit made by the attracted gifted teachers. Besides, there is a possibility that this university has already got many gifted teachers, so attracting of other good teachers is useless.（有牛教授就不用引进了吗？哈哈，个人觉得有点不充分。） Therefore, I would not be persuaded until the author provides more evidence that this investment is well spent.

To sum up, this argument fails to claim that the university would attract gifted teachers through offering chance of employment for teachers' spouses. To make is stronger, the author should provide more evidence that offering employment is a good method to attract best teachers and researchers, and this investment is well spent.（这个从句有点怪，改成一个不定式做目的状语会不会好点。）

文章思路清晰，提一个小建议，以后用代词的地方尽量考虑下指代是否明确，个人建议仅供参考哈！