Argument140 -高频- 决战830拍砖组

BKRL1234UID: 2127835

argument 140
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."
************************
In this report the author recommends that Professor Thomas receive a $10,000 raise and a promotion to Department Chairperson (DC). To support this recommendation the author cites the following facts about Professor Thomas's demonstrated teaching and research abilities: (1) her classes are among the largest at the university which demonstrates her popularity among students; (2) the money she has brought to the university in research grants has exceeded her salary in each of the last two years. Carefully examination of this supporting evidence, however, reveals that it lends little credible support to the recommendation.

To begin with, the argument unfairly assumes that the scale of her class which is among the largest at the university indicates that she is popular among students. The author provides no evidence to substantiate this assumption. Lacking such evidence it is entirely possible that it is the subject of what she refers in her class is favor among students such as computer, economy which have a strong appeal to students rather than mere her classes. It is also possible that a large amount of students major in a certain subject which has close relationship with what Professor Thomas teaches, therefore, they have no choice but take her classes. Either scenario, if true, would make her classes among the largest at the university and undermine the assumption.

On the second place, her ability of bringing money to the university in research grants does not necessarily indicate that she possess research ability. Perhaps she merely has close relationship with some endowment institution，therefore she can easily gain a large amount of money from them for research of the university, which has nothing to do with demonstrating her research ability. Thus, if this is the case, without more information that might contribute to demonstrate her research ability, the author cannot justify the claim that her gathering money ability equates with her research ability.

Finally, even assuming that her teaching and research ability have been demonstrated, this assumption accomplishes nothing toward bolstering the recommendation that she receive a $10,000 raise and even a promotion to DC. The teaching and research abilities are just the fundamental elements that every professor should possess. Without providing other clear evidences that she is really superior to other or does better than before, the author cannot convince me on the basis of them that she should receive an extra raise, let alone a promotion to DC.

In conclusion, the report's author cannot justify his or her recommendation on the basis of the scant evidence provided in the report, as it stands. To bolster the recommendation, the author must provide better evidence that Professor Thomas is actually possess superior teaching and research abilities as well as other outstanding skills which match an extra raise and a promotion.

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-8-19 at 23:50 ]