argument169【7\8\910】第十一次作业

1001storyUID: 2516918

TOPIC: ARGUMENT169 - The 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."
WORDS: 553   

This letter is well-presented at first glance, but do not provide reliable evidence to persuade us after a serious consideration. By several studies conducted by Bronston College, the author declares that Pierce University should offer some openings to the faculty's spouses in order to attract more talent teachers and researchers. And these new members of Pierce University will improve the morale of others in same university. The argument rests on a series of unsubstantiated evidence, and therefore is untenable as it stands.

The premise of this argument that gifted teachers and researchers can improve the morale of all members of university seems unreliable, because there is not any evidence included in this argument to display the relationship between the morale and these gifted ones. The morale should be part of campus culture and may not be changed by some staff.

In addition, Bronston College conducted some studies but did not mention any details of these studies. The participant in studies must be randomly selected and the number of them should large enough. If we can not master these factors of studies, it is not reasonable for us to justify the validity of these studies. Even though assuming the professors whose spouses can find jobs in the same region are happier in the small town where Broston College exists, the arguer could not conclude that Pierce University will draw more famous professors to accept offers. The author ignores the difference between two places, and assumes that the professors will more likely work in Pierce University when their spouses can be employed in this area. Such differences may include that there are less job opportunities for people in Bronston College's region, or that the most residents in this region except staff of college work in a neighbor town. It is possible that the chance for employment is plentiful in Pierce University's area and people work in this area. As a professor in university, in my common sense, he may pay much attention to the level of university’s researching, the academic atmosphere of it and the salary of him in stead of the employment of his spouse. It appears reasonable, therefore, for Pierce University to focus on the factors mentioned above than to offer employment to spouses.

Finally, an investment, spent in creating more job offers to professor’s wife or husband, will not be efficacious for Pierce University to employ the new teacher and researcher in this area. It is mentioned in the argument that the university can not ensure the offers to be accepted and considered as an ideal one. This may let the new policy of offering jobs to new staff’s spouses less effective and deserve, for instance, the spouse do not satisfy the offering and refuse it or the cost of this new policy is expensive leading a deficit of university, both of which are wastes of investment.

To sum up, the author fails to strengthen his claim that this new policy will make sense, because the evidence cited in this argument can not lend a strong support to what the arguer maintains. Admittedly, if the author would have to demonstrate more information regarding what the situation about the interest of faculty in Pierce University like and how much the investment will cost, this argument could have been more thoroughly and logically acceptable.  

这次算是我用时最短的一次，但是还是超过30分钟啊！


[ 本帖最后由 1001story 于 2008-7-31 20:59 编辑 ]

thepopdjUID: 2517220

This letter is well-presented at first glance, but do not provide reliable evidence to persuade us after a serious consideration. By several studies conducted by Bronston College, the author declares that Pierce University should offer some openings to the faculty's spouses in order to attract more talent teachers and researchers. And these new members of Pierce University will improve the morale of others in same university. The argument rests on a series of unsubstantiated evidence, and therefore is untenable as it stands.

The premise of this argument that gifted teachers and researchers can improve the morale of all members of university seems unreliable, because there is not any evidence included in this argument to display the relationship between the morale and these gifted ones. The morale should be part of campus culture and may not be changed by some staff.(最后一句感觉有点牵强)

In addition, Bronston College conducted some studies but did not mention any details of these studies. The participant in studies must be randomly selected and the number of them should large enough. If we can not master these factors of studies, it is not reasonable for us to justify the validity of these studies. Even though assuming the professors whose spouses can find jobs in the same region are happier in the small town where Broston College exists, the arguer could not conclude that Pierce University will draw more famous professors to accept offers. The author ignores the difference between two places, and assumes that the professors will more likely work in Pierce University when their spouses can be employed in this area. Such differences may include that there are less job opportunities for people in Bronston College's region, or that the most residents in this region except staff of college work in a neighbor town. It is possible that the chance for employment is plentiful in Pierce University's area and people work in this area. As a professor in university, in my common sense, he may pay much attention to the level of university’s researching, the academic atmosphere of it and the salary of him in stead of the employment of his spouse. It appears reasonable, therefore, for Pierce University to focus on the factors mentioned above than to offer employment to spouses.（这一观点比较赞成）

Finally, an investment, spent in creating more job offers to professor’s wife or husband, will not be efficacious for Pierce University to employ the new teacher and researcher in this area. It is mentioned in the argument that the university can not ensure the offers to be accepted and considered as an ideal one. This may let the new policy of offering jobs to new staff’s spouses less effective and deserve, for instance, the spouse do not satisfy the offering and refuse it or the cost of this new policy is expensive leading a deficit of university, both of which are wastes of investment.

To sum up, the author fails to strengthen his claim that this new policy will make sense, because the evidence cited in this argument can not lend a strong support to what the arguer maintains. Admittedly, if the author would have to demonstrate more information regarding what the situation about the interest of faculty in Pierce University like and how much the investment will cost, this argument could have been more thoroughly and logically acceptable.

整篇文章还是写的很好的，用词，语言都比较丰富
不过个人意见，正文第一段有些问题，士气的问题可能是个次要的攻击点，可能连你也觉得比较牵强，只写了几句话就过了，如果真的找不到别的错了，可以把第一段放到后面也行，也可以把征文第二段拆成两个部分来写：1 study所研究的地方和Pierce University环境不同，2 好的老师对学校的研究能力和学习氛围更看重
说得不好不要见怪，hoho，加油