[argu 26]九月小组8月31日作业

veronicaaaUID: 2217022

TOPIC: ARGUMENT26 - The following appeared in a memo from the chairperson of the school board in the town of Saluda.

"For the past five years, Mr. Charles Schade has been the music director at Steel City High School, and during that time the school band from Steel City High has won three regional band competitions. In addition, the quality of the music rehearsal facilities and musical instruments at Steel City High has improved markedly over the past five years. Because of such successes at Steel City High, the Saluda school board should hire Mr. Schade to plan and direct the general music education programs for the entire Saluda school system."
WORDS: 469          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2006-8-31

The arguer recommends that the Saluda school board(SSB) should hire Mr.Schade(Mr.S) to plan and direct the general music education programs for the entire Saluda school system. To bolster this argument, the arguer provides the evidence that Steel City High School(SCHS) has won three regional band competitions during the tenure of Mr.S as the music director. Furthermore, the arguer contends that the quality of the music rehearsal facilities and musical instrument at SCHS has improved significantly in his tenure of five years. However, the argument relies on a series of groundless evidences and is far from convincing as it stands.

In the first place, the arguer does not provide us with any detailed information about how the music teaching and competition achievement used to be before Mr.S worked as music director there.  The arguer does not give any reliable evidence to prove the capability of Mr.S and how he contribute to the improvement of school's musical teaching, either. Without knowing this critical information, we cannot get to the conclusion that it was Mr.s who contribute greatly to the winnning over three regional band conpetitions. It is entirely possible that students in SCHS have done well in regional band competitions for many years, and it was a tradition in SCHS to put strong emphasis on musical teaching, which resulted in the remarkable achievement.

In the second place, the arguer fails to convince me of the correlation between the employment of Mr.S and the improved quality of musical rehearsal facilities and instruments at SCHS, as alleged in the arguement.  Admittedly, these two things occurred in the same time period, but it does not necessarily lead to the fact that the former is definitely the reason for the latter. Perhaps the improved quality was due to more financial investment on musical facilities and inatruments by the school board, which probably has little bearing on the effort or capability of Mr.S. The arguer makes his conclusion arbitrarily and lack of careful investigation.

In the third place, even if those above accomplishments are mainly due to Mr.S, it is unfairly to contend that the SSB should hire Mr.S to plan and direct the general music education programs for the entire Saluda School system. As we know, the work of a music director and the work to plan and direct for the whole school system are two different thing, which demand different capabilities. Even Mr.s is competent enough for his work as being a music director, he may lack the ability of a genaral plan and compose creative idea for the whole school. He may also be confused of dealing with lots of staff in school, which recquires high level of communication. Moreover, maybe there are some other candidates who also fit fot the job, and the arguer does not provide any of their information to make comparison with Mr.S.

To sum up, this arguer fails to set up a logical reasong, nor does it make the argument sound. To better evaluate the argument, I would like to know the primary muscial conditions in SCHS, and detailed information to prove that Mr.S really contribute a lot to the improved achievement of the school. Moreover, whether Mr.S will still be competent to the work of planning for the whole school, and whether there is any other candidates fit for the job are still need to be known.

simplearenUID: 2151889

没有细看文章，但是你的思路还是有点问题。
第一点，主题句你应该说：没有证据表明竞赛成绩是教练带来的。而不是说没有提及以前的成绩，这个可以写，但是最好在后面吧。
第二句，也是相似的问题：你说了correlation却没有明确是何correlation.其实也说这种成绩与教练关系牵强就好。实际上买东西也不是教练做的事，后勤啥的。

最后一段，我语言比较差，第一句不知道有没问题。但后面一句primary估计不是这样用的，former