Argument169=美丽G程小组=小组第6次作业by petric

petricUID: 2719885

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."

提纲：1.首先研究是否有代表性，样本，是否代表PC所在地区的情况（B、P地区生活习惯不一样，导致P教授可能没这种偏好）在同一个地区工作和在同一
2.即使配偶能在同一地区工作会生活高兴，但不代表教授们会把配偶的工作地点作为选择自己工作单位的首要因素，科研；同时没提如果不提供，是否好的教授人员不会来P学校
3.不知道新员工的比例，也许起不到提升全体员工士气的作用
4.即使提供教授对象工作，不一定起到效果。首先，他们会不会来，需不需要。其次，能不能提供所有新员工同样的机会，花费多少；

Grounding on studies that professors of Bronston College(B) felt happier when their spouses worked in the same area, supposing that most talent employees will choose Pierce University(U) if their spouses are offered jobs, the chairman accordingly suggests that money spent on providing employment for new faculty's spouses will improve P's morale.
However, this argument is in fact logically flawed in the following aspects.

A threshold problem involves the reliability of the survey. We are not informed whether number of professors responding to the study is statistically significant or whether they were representative of professors in general ,especially those working for P where might
be located in a metropolitan. The smaller the sample, the greater the possibility for biased results. Perhaps the customs of area where P is located are quite different with those of the small town, as a result professors of P might not have the same attitude with the sample of B in regards to their spouses' working place .If so, the chairperson cannot justifiably rely on the study to draw any conclusion whatsoever.

Even if professors in general are more willing to work in the same geographic area with their spouses, the chairperson unfairly assumes that the most gifted teachers are researchers
render their spouses' working condition
as the dominant factors to choose their employment. Lacking evidence to confirm this assumption, it is entirely possible that their decisions have nothing to do with this issue. What attract them is the academic capacity of a university, including finance for research, laboratory condition, students' qualities and the like. Perhaps, no matter whether such policies will be adopt, the competition for P's vacancies is always fierce because of the notable reputations of P. Thus, the recommendation that the chairperson made is in vain, and is a kind of wasting financial resource.

Even assuming the future faculties will highly value this policy, it might not lead to morale improvement of the entire faculty. First, if these couples are not satisfied with the jobs provided for faculties' spouses, they will not take P as their first choice. It is possible that professors of B had fewer choices than professors in the area where P lies, or the satisfaction conduct through the respondent of B came from the considerable jobs of their spouse- working as professors with high salary and good benefits, which P cannot provide. Besides, if the fraction of new faculty is low in total, the improvement of morale is open to doubt; for that case, the chairperson does not analyze the cost of the proposed actions and whether P has the capability of offering employment to the spouse of every new faculty member. If this finance is spend on supporting researches or improvement on teaching facility such as multimedia facilities, common sense tells us that the promising researchers and teachers will be inclined to choose such universities.

In sum, the argument relies on certain problematic assumptions which render it unconvincing as it stands. In order to draw a better conclusion, the author should reason more convincingly, cite some evidence that is more persuasive and take every possible consideration into account.

猫斯基UID: 2607814

嗯嗯，第一段真的很简洁但是很优秀的句子

猫斯基UID: 2607814

关于你的第一个逻辑错误。。。呢个调查的错误。。和类比的错误。。分开说是不是更好点。。尤其是呢个类比。，可以成一个独立的大段。。是个很明显的主要的错误。

猫斯基UID: 2607814

第三段
What attract ==》》what attracts
Perhaps, no matter whether such policies will be adopt（adopted）

猫斯基UID: 2607814

关于你的第三个逻辑错误。。不是很理解的说