argument169 [7\8\9\10] 第11次作业

小猪sisiUID: 2453484

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."
时间：50m

In this argument, arguer asserts that if they offer jobs to new faculty member they hire, more
offers would be accept and that doing so will be worthy. To support his argument, arguer cites
a study done by Bronston College. Although this argument seems to be sound and acceptable, it
contains several severe logical fallacies.

First of all, arguer cites the study done by Bronston College, , indicating that both male and
female professors are happier living in small towns when their spouses are also employed in the
same geographic area. However, arguer fails to realize differences between Bronston College
and Pierce University. Bronston College is located in small town while Pierce University may be
located in a big cite. So the difference would effect professors' attitudes toward living in the
area where their university or college located, that professors in Pierce University are more
concerned about natural environment than whether their spouses work in the same geographic
area. Therefore, arguer would have to offer us more evidence to imply that attitudes of professors
in Bronston College could stands for professors' in Pierce University.

Besides, even if professors in Pierce University would be happier living there when
their spouses worked in the same geographic area, this study only displays professors' attitudes
but not all faculty. In this consequence, some faculty would be attracted but the most gifted ones
concern more on academic environment and chances of promotion and offering their spouses
working chance would not be appealing to them. Therefore, arguer should rule out these possibilities
before concluding that they will attract the most gifted teachers and researchers.

Finally, even if offering working chance to faculty would attract them to work for
the university, the most economical way to attract professors is to offer their high wages. It is
entirely possible that although these gifted professor would be happier to have spouses working
in the same geographic area, they would be more likely to accept an offer supplying he or she
higher wages. Therefore, the money invested would be more worthy if it is spent on increasing
professors wages.

To sum up, arguer could not substantiate what he concludes that to supply professors' spouses
employment chances would attract more professors to accept offers and money invested is worthy.
To better the logic of his argument, arguer should provide more convincing evidence to prove
that the result of study done by Bronston College could be applied in Pierce University and the
most gifted professors have the same attitude with other faculty. To make his conclusion more
convincing, arguer should have to rule out other methods that have same effects but
with lower cost.

DemiquaverUID: 203651

今天一定把债还了……

DemiquaverUID: 203651

ARGU很少有结构上的问题，逻辑上的问题也不是很多。一些小问题就结合具体的文章内容说吧。

In this argument, arguer asserts that if they offer jobs to new faculty member they hire（是offer给他们的spouse，可别漏了）, more offers（前后有两个offer，一个给faculty的，一个给他们spouse的，搞不清哪个是哪个了，换一种说法吧） would be accept and that doing so will be worthy. To support his argument, arguer cites a study（好像是some studies吧） done by Bronston College. Although this argument seems to be sound and acceptable, it contains several severe logical fallacies.

First of all, arguer cites the study done by Bronston College, , indicating that both male and female professors are happier living in small towns when their spouses are also employed in the same geographic area. However, arguer fails to realize differences between Bronston College and Pierce University. Bronston College is located in small town while Pierce University may be located in a big cite（题目没看仔细吧，姐姐，“which is also located in a small town”。但是竟然后面的论述也还有一定道理，也是水平的体现啊！）. So the difference would effect professors' attitudes toward living in the area where their university or college located, that professors in Pierce University are more concerned about natural environment than whether their spouses work in the same geographic area. Therefore, arguer would have to offer us more evidence to imply that attitudes of professors in Bronston College could stands for professors' in Pierce University.

Besides, even if professors in Pierce University（根据题目的意思，应该是new hired profs，两者的区别对于整篇文章的逻辑差好多） would be happier living there when their spouses worked in the same geographic area, this study only displays professors' attitudes but not all faculty. In this consequence, some faculty would be attracted but the most gifted ones concern more on academic environment and chances of promotion and offering their spouses working chance would not be appealing to them.（这句里面太多and了，而且最后一个and前后不是并列关系） Therefore, arguer should rule out these possibilities before concluding that they will attract the most gifted teachers and researchers.

Finally, even if offering working chance to faculty（是不是少了spouse？）would attract them to work form the university, the most economical way to attract professors is to offer their high wages. It is entirely possible that although these gifted professor would be happier to have spouses working in the same geographic area, they would be more likely to accept an offer supplying he or she（三格） higher wages. Therefore, the money invested would be more worthy if it is spent on increasing professors wages.

To sum up, arguer could not substantiate what he concludes that to supply professors' spouses employment chances would attract more professors to accept offers and money invested is worthy.To better the logic of his argument（学习了，第一次，免我学费）, arguer should provide more convincing evidence to prove that the result of study done by Bronston College could be applied in Pierce University and the most gifted professors have the same attitude with other faculty. To make his conclusion more convincing, arguer should have to（这两个好像不放一块儿的吧） rule out other methods that have same effects but with lower cost.

个人拙见，水平有限，如有不妥，请见谅！

[ 本帖最后由 Demiquaver 于 2008-8-1 22:39 编辑 ]