Argument140【南智组 Norman第16次作业】--已修改，希望多提建议！

norman518UID: 188582

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."


In this report, based on the premise of her teaching and research abilities, the Committee on Faculty Promotions and Salaries, at Elm City University (CFPS-ECU), suggests that Professor Thomas (PT) should receive a $10,000 raise and a promotion to Department Chairperson for the sake of remaining in Elm City University (ECU). To strengthen his suggestion, the speaker cites a series of PT’s contribution on teaching and research. However, I find it is full of fallacies from reasoning to conclusion.

Above all, the CFPS-ECU 's suggestion is based on two false assumptions of PT's dissatisfaction about her salary or position and the contemplation of job-hopping. In this report, the speaker put no evidence to explain that PT is dissatisfied with her salary and position. It is totally possible that PT is favorable of ECU at all, or PT’s dissatisfaction mainly focuses on the teaching and research instruments rather than her salary and position. And more, according to this report, there is no evidence to illustrate that PT wants to change her current career, or another university provides PT with higher salary and position to attract her. Finally, even if PT have got a $10,000 raise and a promotion to Department Chairperson, it could not help to change PT’s intention of job-hopping, the speaker fails to provide any evidence to express that salary and position are the key factors for PT to keep off in ECU, there may be other key factors for PT to go away botany department in ECU, such as her hostility to ECU, her unfriendly faculties, less advanced research equipments, autocratic academic atmosphere, and so on. If all above possibilities are not ruled out, the speaker’s consideration is unreasonable, and the CFPS-ECU 's suggestion is still untenable.

In the next place, even if PT’s preeminent abilities of teaching and research are tenable, the CFPS-ECU’s suggestion is still irrational. Firstly, the speaker fails to take account of other negative factors in which the promotion of PT’s salary and position could result, such as other professor’s dissatisfaction to PT, the disharmony of ECU as a whole, and so forth. It is highly possible that the salary and position of TP are already much higher than her colleagues, what PT really needs is more spirit encourage than practical interest. It is more reasonable to endow PT honor prospects, such as entitling a lab or scholarship with the name of PT. Secondly, an excellent professor could not be equal to a qualified administrator. According to this report, PT should be good at teaching and research rather than administration, if PT is really promoted to the position of Chairperson of botany department, it is likely possible to make a significant loss in both students and academic research, and then to produce an ineffective administrator. If the speaker could not rule out these above possibilities, I still suspect the rationality of CFPS-ECU’s suggestion.

In the last place, the suggestion’s premise about PT’s teaching and research abilities is doubtable. In this report, it is hasty to conclude PT’s effectively teaching ability only through her popular classes. Perhaps students get easily through PT’s classes or get higher grade in PT’s classes than other professor, or perhaps Thomas’s classes are required courses for all students in botany department, even in ECU as a whole. When it comes to PT’s research ability, it is still arbitrary to come to the conclusion on her effective research just according to the amount of research grant brought by her. It is whole possible that the case in last year is abnormal, and that her fellows attract far more research fund than her. If all above scenarios are true, the validity of PT’s teaching and research abilities is questionable or suspectable, let alone to this suggestion.

In sum, this suggestion is irrational and untenable from assumption and premise to reasoning. To strengthen, CFPS-ECU should provide more evidence in detail about PT’s dissatisfaction with her salary and position, the cases of other university alluring PT, and the other professor’s reflection to PT’s promotion. To better evaluate this suggestion, I would need more detailed information about the quality instruction of PT’s classes, the results of her research or the paper published on authoritative magazines, and the amount research fund attracted by other professors.

[ 本帖最后由 norman518 于 2007-1-25 22:06 编辑 ]

luckychinaUID: 2131861

好久不见阿，首先热烈鼓掌欢迎norman大哥复出，呵呵~~

In this report, based on the premise of her teaching and research abilities, the Committee on Faculty Promotions and Salaries at Elm City University (CFPS-ECU) suggests that Professor Thomas (PT) should receive a $10,000 raise and a promotion to Department Chairperson for the sake of remaining in Elm City University (ECU). To strengthen his suggestion, the speaker cites a series of PT’s contribution on teaching and research. However, I find it is full of fallacies from reasoning to conclusion. 到底什么样的开头才好呢？官方范文好像也没有怎么restate阿

Above all, the CFPS-ECU 's suggestion is based on two false assumption (assumptions) of PT's dissatisfaction about her salary or position and the contemplation of job-hopping. In this report, the speaker put no evidence to explain that PT is dissatisfied with her salary and position. It is totally possible that PT is favorable of ECU at all, or PT’s dissatisfaction mainly focuses on the teaching and research instruments rather than her salary and position. And more, according to this report, there is no evidence to illustrate that PT wants to change her current career, or other （another）university provides PT with higher salary and position to attract her. Finally, even if PT have got a $10,000 raise and a promotion to Department Chairperson, it could not help to change PT’s intention of job-hopping, the speaker fails to provide any evidence to express that salary and position are the key factors for PT to keep off in ECU, there may be another (other) key factors for PT to go away botany department in ECU, such as her hostility to ECU, her unfriended (unfriendly) faculties, unadvanced (less advanced) research equipments, autocratic academic atmosphere, and so on. If all above possibilities are not rule (ruled) out, the speaker’s consideration is unreasonable, and the CFPS-ECU 's suggestion is still untenable. 觉得你的列举他因比我好多了，当然还有一些明显的语法错误就不一一指出了，比如第三人称单数等等。

In the next place, even if PT’s preeminent abilities of teaching and research are tenable, the CFPS-ECU’s suggestion is still irrational.（杀完前提，开始攻击结论了。不过这里先用了一个让步，感觉有点突兀。我一般的思路是先攻击让步的内容，然后说即使。。。结论还是不成立，使全文各段递进。你认为如何呢） Firstly, the speaker fails to take account of other negative factors in which the promotion of PT’s salary and position could result, such as other professor’s dissatisfaction to PT, the disharmony of ECU as a whole, and so forth. It is highly possible that the salary and position of TP are already much higher than her colleagues, what PT really needs is more spirit encourage than practical interest. It is more reasonable to endow PT honor prospects, such as entitling a lab or scholarship with the name of PT. （攻击结论可能产生的负面效应，恩，这是我没有想到的）Secondly, a（an）excellent professor could not be equal to a qualified administrator. According to this report, PT should be good at teaching and research rather than administration, if PT is really promoted to the position of Chairperson of botany Department, it is likely possible to make a significant loss in both students and academic research, and then to produce an ineffective administrator. If the speaker could not rule out these above possibilities, I still suspect the rationality of CFPS-ECU’s suggestion.8错

In the last place, the suggestion’s premise about PT’s teaching and research abilities is doubtable. In this report, it is hasty to conclude PT’s effectively teaching ability only through her popular classes. Perhaps students get easily through PT’s classes or get higher grade in PT’s classes than other professor, or perhaps Thomas’s classes are required courses for all students in botany department, even in ECU as a whole. When it comes to PT’s research ability, it is still arbitrary to come to the conclusion on her effective research just according to the amount of research grant brought by her. It is whole (wholly) possible that the case in last year is abnormal, and that her fellows attract far more research fund than her. If all above scenarios are true, the effectivity (effectiveness) of PT’s teaching and research abilities is questionable or suspectable, let alone to the suggestion. 你的他因总是找得很在点

In sum, this suggestion is irrational and untenable from assumption and premise to reasoning. To strengthen, CFPS-ECU should provide more evidence in detail about PT’s dissatisfaction with her salary and position, the cases of other university alluring PT, and the other professor’s reflection to PT’s promotion. To better evaluate this suggestion, I would need more detailed information about the quality instruction of PT’s classes, the results of her research or the paper published on authoritative magazines, and the amount research fund attracted by other professors.


norman的阿狗也写得很好啊~~问题在上面都说过了，有时间帮忙答答疑哦~~

[ 本帖最后由 luckychina 于 2007-1-24 16:23 编辑 ]

norman518UID: 188582

谢谢你的修改

In this report, based on the premise of her teaching and research abilities, the Committee on Faculty Promotions and Salaries at Elm City University (CFPS-ECU) suggests that Professor Thomas (PT) should receive a $10,000 raise and a promotion to Department Chairperson for the sake of remaining in Elm City University (ECU). To strengthen his suggestion, the speaker cites a series of PT’s contribution on teaching and research. However, I find it is full of fallacies from reasoning to conclusion. 到底什么样的开头才好呢？官方范文好像也没有怎么restate阿
【开头最好用自己简洁概括，而不是restate，我的开头也有2问题：①忙于用体现缩写而欠概括②没有指出作者的错误性隐含assumption---文中的话外之音，第一段攻击的】

Above all, the CFPS-ECU 's suggestion is based on two false assumption (assumptions) of PT's dissatisfaction about her salary or position and the contemplation of job-hopping. In this report, the speaker put no evidence to explain that PT is dissatisfied with her salary and position. It is totally possible that PT is favorable of ECU at all, or PT’s dissatisfaction mainly focuses on the teaching and research instruments rather than her salary and position. And more, according to this report, there is no evidence to illustrate that PT wants to change her current career, or other （another）university provides PT with higher salary and position to attract her. Finally, even if PT have got a $10,000 raise and a promotion to Department Chairperson, it could not help to change PT’s intention of job-hopping, the speaker fails to provide any evidence to express that salary and position are the key factors for PT to keep off in ECU, there may be another (other) key factors for PT to go away botany department in ECU, such as her hostility to ECU, her unfriended (unfriendly)faculties, unadvanced (less advanced)【less advanced 应该是“欠发达吧”，而unadvanced“不先进的”】 research equipments, autocratic academic atmosphere, and so on. If all above possibilities are not rule (ruled) out, the speaker’s consideration is unreasonable, and the CFPS-ECU 's suggestion is still untenable. 觉得你的列举他因比我好多了，当然还有一些明显的语法错误就不一一指出了，比如第三人称单数等等。【请将我的任何错误均指出，那可能才是我真正的弱点】


In the next place, even if PT’s preeminent abilities of teaching and research are tenable, the CFPS-ECU’s suggestion is still irrational.（杀完前提，开始攻击结论了。不过这里先用了一个让步，感觉有点突兀。我一般的思路是先攻击让步的内容，然后说即使。。。结论还是不成立，使全文各段递进。你认为如何呢）【①应该是先杀完结论中的“implicit assumption”，才开始攻击“结论的合理性”---其实我在此虽然是从premise出发（先承认premise是合理的），仍然推出结论是不合理②在于“攻击顺序”个人认为：先从重要的、具有杀伤力的突破点开始，其实主要取决于---你自己对原文的逻辑的理解。】 Firstly, the speaker fails to take account of other negative factors in which the promotion of PT’s salary and position could result, such as other professor’s dissatisfaction to PT, the disharmony of ECU as a whole, and so forth. It is highly possible that the salary and position of TP are already much higher than her colleagues, what PT really needs is more spirit encourage than practical interest. It is more reasonable to endow PT honor prospects, such as entitling a lab or scholarship with the name of PT. （攻击结论可能产生的负面效应，恩，这是我没有想到的）Secondly, a（an）excellent professor could not be equal to a qualified administrator. According to this report, PT should be good at teaching and research rather than administration, if PT is really promoted to the position of Chairperson of botany Department, it is likely possible to make a significant loss in both students and academic research, and then to produce an ineffective administrator. If the speaker could not rule out these above possibilities, I still suspect the rationality of CFPS-ECU’s suggestion.8错

In the last place, the suggestion’s premise about PT’s teaching and research abilities is doubtable. In this report, it is hasty to conclude PT’s effectively teaching ability only through her popular classes. Perhaps students get easily through PT’s classes or get higher grade in PT’s classes than other professor, or perhaps Thomas’s classes are required courses for all students in botany department, even in ECU as a whole. When it comes to PT’s research ability, it is still arbitrary to come to the conclusion on her effective research just according to the amount of research grant brought by her. It is whole (wholly)【一定要用wholly吗？whole也可作“副词”呀】 possible that the case in last year is abnormal, and that her fellows attract far more research fund than her. If all above scenarios are true, the effectivity (effectiveness) 【“有效性”还是改为：validity】 of PT’s teaching and research abilities is questionable or suspectable, let alone to the suggestion. 你的他因总是找得很在点

In sum, this suggestion is irrational and untenable from assumption and premise to reasoning. To strengthen, CFPS-ECU should provide more evidence in detail about PT’s dissatisfaction with her salary and position, the cases of other university alluring PT, and the other professor’s reflection to PT’s promotion. To better evaluate this suggestion, I would need more detailed information about the quality instruction of PT’s classes, the results of her research or the paper published on authoritative magazines, and the amount research fund attracted by other professors.norman的阿狗也写得很好啊~~问题在上面都说过了，有时间帮忙答答疑哦~~
【希望：
①     帮我改作文时将我的任何错误均指出，那可能才是我真正的弱点，谢谢；
② 对于other 和another详细的区别，可以告诉我吗？比如： other factors 和another factors的区别】



[ 本帖最后由 norman518 于 2007-1-25 22:22 编辑 ]