argument140 寄托4人组 8.27

meautoUID: 2116250

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.'
------正文------
In this report, the arguer suggests to increase the pay and promote the position to Department Chairperson of Professor Thomas, an instructor of botany in the Elm City University (ECU). However, close scrutiny of various cited evidence reveals it lends little support to the arguer's suggestion.

To begin with, it is too presumptuous to judge Professor Thomas as an outstanding teacher according to the fact that her classes are among the largest at the university. Perhaps her classes are compulsory courses required for most students, without considering their willingness. If so, the size of the classes is little indication of the popularity of Professor Thomas. Even if she is welcome among students, her popularity might does not necessarily come from her teaching ability. Possible is that she is a loose grader, giving relatively higher marks to students. For that matter, students might opt her classes for better grades rather than for better instruction. Unless the arguer can rule out these possibilities, his/her comment on the teaching ability of Professor Thomas should not be taken seriously.

Also in question is the research ability of Professor Thomas suggested by the research grants. Anyhow, her research ability may accomplish nothing to the research grants she has brought to the university. After all, it is entirely possible that the botany department in ECU has been in bad need of financial support, then no matter who serves as botany professors, patrons would inject grants in the department. Another possibility is that it is the teacher prior to Professor Thomas who enticed the research grants. When significant achievements were made by that person, people might tend to continue their support for the established reputation. Even if we concede that Professor Thomas is in the cause-and-effect relationship with the research grants, we do not know the specific amount of money she has drawn. If her salary is of a small sum, then the research grants may accordingly be of little help to ECU. Given either of these scenarios, the research ability of Professor Thomas could not impress me with only the research grants that she is associated.

In fact, granted the remarkable teaching and research abilities of Professor Thomas, it still may be too arbitrary to recommend a pay increase and promotion to Department Chairperson to her. For one thing, the arguer informs us nothing about the performance of other teachers in the same department. Maybe there is another teacher who deserves more for the increasing pay and promotion, say, someone with superior teaching and research abilities, and more importantly, with leader quality. For that matter, the recommended increase of payment and promotion should not go to Professor Thomas.

In the end, Professor Thomas may not concern the tangible reward as the arguer implies. What keeps her stay in the university may be the hot academic atmosphere or the intimate relationship with students in ECU. If this is the case, Professor Thomas would not leave ECU even if her salary and position remain the same as before.

To sum up, this recommendation needs more evidence to justify the pay increase and promotion for Professor Thomas. This evidence might include: more information ensuring us the teaching and research abilities of Professor Thomas as well as her fellows, and her major concerns for the job as an botany professor in ECU.

bridgewalkerUID: 208595

立正！

bridgewalkerUID: 208595

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.'
------正文------
In this report, the arguer suggests to increase the pay and promote the position to Department Chairperson of Professor Thomas, an instructor of botany in the Elm City University (ECU). However, close scrutiny of various cited evidence reveals it lends little support to the arguer's suggestion.(这句单复数检查一下)

To begin with, it is too presumptuous to judge Professor Thomas as an outstanding teacher according to the fact that her classes are among the largest at the university. Perhaps her classes are compulsory courses required for most students, without considering their willingness. If so, the size of the classes is little indication of the popularity of Professor Thomas. Even if she is welcome among students, her popularity might does not necessarily come from her teaching ability. Possible is that she is a loose grader, giving relatively higher(不用比较级似乎好些) marks to students. For that matter, students might opt(换词) her classes for better grades rather than for better instruction. Unless the arguer can rule out these possibilities, his/her comment on the teaching ability of Professor Thomas should not be taken seriously.
这段很利落啊！浑身赞一下！我也写过，没你写得好！

Also in question is the research ability of Professor Thomas suggested by the research grants. Anyhow, her research ability may accomplish nothing to the research grants she has brought to the university. After all, it is entirely possible that the botany department in ECU has been in bad need of financial support, then no matter who serves as botany professors, patrons would inject grants in the department.这个explanation说服力不够 Another possibility is that it is the teacher prior to Professor Thomas who enticed the research grants. When significant achievements were made by that person, people might tend to continue their support for the established reputation. Even if we concede that Professor Thomas is in the cause-and-effect relationship with the research grants, we do not know the specific amount of money she has drawn. If her salary is of a small sum, then the research grants may accordingly be of little help to ECU. Given either of these scenarios, the research ability of Professor Thomas could not impress me with only the research grants that she is associated. 应该重点攻击研究经费不能代表学术能力。你好像有点偏。

In fact, granted the remarkable teaching and research abilities of Professor Thomas, it still may be too arbitrary to recommend a pay increase and promotion to Department Chairperson to her. For one thing, the arguer informs us nothing about the performance of other teachers in the same department. Maybe there is another teacher who deserves more for the increasing pay and promotion, say, someone with superior teaching and research abilities, and more importantly, with leader quality. For that matter, the recommended increase of payment and promotion should not go to Professor Thomas.

In the end, Professor Thomas may not concern the tangible reward as the arguer implies. What keeps her stay in the university may be the hot academic atmosphere or the intimate relationship with students in ECU. If this is the case, Professor Thomas would not leave ECU even if her salary and position remain the same as before.

To sum up, this recommendation needs more evidence to justify the pay increase and promotion for Professor Thomas. This evidence might include: more information ensuring us the teaching and research abilities of Professor Thomas as well as her fellows, and her major concerns for the job as an botany professor in ECU.

你漏了很关键的一点：会教书会研究不一定会管理（当Department Chairperson）。注意一下！

meautoUID: 2116250

evidence 是不可数的,没有问题
管理我在正文第4段带了一句more importantly, with leader quality
第2段是有点偏

打字啊打字啊,狗狗就看我到时打不打的完了~~

meautoUID: 2116250

SIGN~还真是大小错误一堆

阅!

嘶喊的牧歌UID: 197463

这篇文章写得很不错哦！！
把B4再展开一点就更好了。
不过你应该已经没时间了吧。
那写三个够了。把B3再深入一下。
很棒。赞我的马甲MM。