Argument140 by wcnk

wcnkUID: 2546550

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."
WORDS: 410

TIME: 00:48:00


同样是拼写问题~~思路还算清晰，限时就是写不完呀~~:dizzy:

The arguer makes the recommendation that Professor Thomas receive a 10,000 raise and a promotion to Department Chairperson of Elm City University (ECU for short). By support the recommendation, the arguer cited two facts about Professor Thomas, thus make the assertion that she is well worth her annual salary. In order to detain Professor Thomas, we should take the arguer's recommendation. It may be convincing at the first sight, but some sever problems may appear after analysis.

First, the fact that "Her classes are among the largest at the university" cannot demonstrate her popularity among students as the arguer assumed. There is a possibility that her classes are compulsory to students, or maybe Professor Thomas is only the professor of botany which caused her class the biggest around the university.
Even we assume that Professor Thomas is really popular in the university, it still cannot support the arguer's claim that "Professor Thomas has proved herself to be well worth her annual salary", for the reason that popularity cannot be used to evaluate whether a teacher worth the salary. Thus, we can hardly draw the conclusion barely on the fact the arguer offered.

Meanwhile, the arguer faulty asserts that for fear of the possibility that Professor Thomas will leave ECU for another college, we should accept the recommendation. Many other methods can be adopted to detain Professor Thomas. It is convincing that an old teacher, which has been in ECU for 17 years, plus her popularity and admiration in her project, would not leave ECU for another university.

Even all the assumptions can be acceptable, the arguer fails to offer us the standard of evaluation. How much money should be added to Professor Thomas and whether the promotion is appropriate left questionable. It may not be an appropriate decision to both Professor Thomas and ECU. Individually, maybe Professor Thomas would not be as dedicated as she used to be after receiving more salary. Besides, she may be distracted by the chairperson duty and may has less accomplishment on her research. To ECU, we may hardly benefit from the recommendation. What's more, it may cause Professor Thomas leave ECU because she has more stress from the ECU according to salary increase and promotion.

In all, we cannot accept the recommendation barely on the arguer’s argument. To make the recommendation more reliable, more investigation on the teacher’s true value should be done. Besides, the amount on increasing her salary should be evaluated clearly.