Definitely, a victory 小组第1次作业 arugument169 By 6号liyao0509(KM骰子)

liyao0509UID: 2825597

169.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."

In this argument, the arguer advocates that Pierce University should offer employment to the spouse of each new faculty member they hire in order to attract the most gifted teachers and researchers, for that both male and female professors are happier living in small towns when their spouses are also employed in the same area. Although this argument might seem reasonable at first glance, it is in fact ill-convinced. The reasons are stated as follow.

In the first place, the arguer assumes that both male and female professors live in a happier condition when their spouses are also employed. Although this consequence conducted by Bronston College is entirely possible, it is still ambiguous for a survey which does not show how they got this consequence. Some indispensable information are staying unknown, such as size of the sample, which decides whether the number of researchers is statistically significance; judging index of happiness, which may be seriously influenced by subjective perspective; and ways of conduct, which directly determines whether the consequence is convincible. Without these details, the argument is questionable.

In the second place, the arguer assumes that by enhancing the sense of happiness between spouses, the school could improve the morale of their entire staff. Nevertheless, it is one of the factors which would effects morale of staff, there are other factors, such as transporting condition, academic atmosphere, administration system, and well-beings, all of these would heavily act on morale of staff, even have much effect than employment of spouses. So the employment for one’s spouse is not necessarily attracts the most gifted teachers and researchers, maybe the goal for teachers and researchers is more likely to be achievement on career than happiness between spouse.

What is more, when the large money invest in offering employment to the spouse of each new faculty member we hire, the money invest in other aspects must be reduced which may turn to
negative effects on attracting gifted faculty. Without accounting for and calculating the investment, the arguer cannot bolster the recommendation.

To sum up, the arguer’s argument mentioned above is not based on valid evidence or sound reasoning with lacking lot of dispensable factors for a conclusive argument. In order to draw a better conclusion, the arguer should reason more convincingly, cite some evidence that is more persuasive, and take every possible consideration into account.