argument140 GOGOGO! 让砖头来得更猛烈些吧

azaleaUID: 196122

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."

提纲：
1 班级大不能证明popularity  
  a也许因为必修 b也许因为给分好 不点名 c popularity需要在学生中广泛调查 d 即使确实popular, popularity只是teaching ability的一方面
2 她带来的赞助钱多并不说明她的research ability
  a 二者have no direct correlation  b 也许仅是last 2y带来赞助 也许她研究用掉的钱比她带来的赞助多 c research ability其他因素
3 teaching and research abilities do not guarantee she has management ability to be competent for the position of Department Chairperson. 而且要考虑admistrative responsibility may consume her time and energy which would otherwise be used in teaching and research.
4 no evidence shows she'll leave. her salary and status may already be good enough. Also, if she intend to leave, such compensation may not work to prevent her from leaving.
(@@一不小心差点写成文章了。。)


In this argument, the author recommends that Professor Thomas receive a $10,000 raise and a promotion to Department Chairperson, based on the supposition of her teaching and research abilities and a suspicion of her leaving of the university. This argument rests on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions, and is therefore unpersuasive as it stands.

To begin with, the author assumes that Professor Thomas's classes are among the largest at the university, demonstrating her popularity among students.
However, a large number of students attending her classes do not prove her popularity among students. It is possible that her courses are compulsory therefore all botany students have to attend. Also, she may give good credits and never take attendance in her classes, thus attractive to those students who are lazy at their studying. To demonstrate her actual popularity, a survey should be conducted among students to explore the real attitude of them towards Professor Thomas and their real incentive to choose her courses. Even if Professor Thomas indeed enjoys high popularity among students, this cannot solely prove her teaching ability. As teaching ability comprises many aspects in addition to popularity, such as the ability to elaborate concepts clearly, to organize teaching contents orderly, to intrigue students' interest, etc. Unless the author shows evidence of those abilities of Professor Thomas, we cannot be convinced of her teaching ability.

The second assumption of the author is that research ability of Professor Thomas can be demonstrated in that the money she has brought to the university in research grants has exceeded her salary in each of the last two years. It is ridiculous of the author to evaluate research ability by the fund she brought to the university. Possibly she is good at writing application letter for money, therefore what brought the money is her writing ability rather than research ability. Even if we admit the correlation of received fund and research ability, we can still question whether she deserves a salary raise and promotion merely by the amount of money she brought. Since we do not know whether she only brought money to the university in the last two years, neither do we know whether her research spending exceeded the money she brought. If these were the case, she actually made no contribution to the fund of the university. How can the committee justify the salary raise? What is more important, we cannot overlook other parameters of research ability, such as the number of papers published in SCI periodicals, the prize she received and the significance of her research achievements. The author should provide evidence related to these aspects.
   
Even if Professor Thomas does have outstanding teaching and research abilities, it does not guarantee that she has managerial ability needed to be competent for the position of Department Chairperson. As is known to all, management requires different abilities from either teaching or research, for example, the ability to make plans and allocate tasks as well as to exploit full potential of coworkers to achieve a goal. Evidence should be offered to testify her managerial ability to us. Also it should be taken into consideration that administrative responsibility may consume her time and energy which would otherwise be used in teaching and research.

Finally, the fear that Professor Thomas will leave Elm City University for another college is groundless. Her salary and status may already be good enough that she has no motivation to leave for another college in search of higher salary and status. Nevertheless, if she intends to leave, such compensation as salary raise and promotion may not work, since she may be unsatisfied with other factors like working environments or personal relationship.

In conclusion, this argument is invalid due to several unsubstantiated assumptions. The author needs to provide direct demonstration of Professor Thomas's teaching, research and managerial ability in order to justify the recommendation of salary raise and promotion.  



646words 70min

happy_shirleyUID: 2155516

In this argument, the author recommends that Professor Thomas should receive a $10,000 raise and a promotion to Department Chairperson, based on the supposition of her teaching and research abilities and a suspicion of her leaving of the university. (这个表达感觉不是很好，对她的教学和研究能力的假定？)This argument rests on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions, and is therefore （therefore seems）unpersuasive as it stands.

To begin with, the author assumes (不是假设的吧，我觉得可以这么写the fact that Professor Thomas's classes are amont the largest is not sufficient to demonstrate that she is very popular with students. )that Professor Thomas's classes are among the largest at the university, demonstrating her popularity among students.
However, a large number of students attending her classes do not prove her popularity among students. It is possible that her courses are compulsory therefore all botany students have to attend. Also, she may give good credits and never take attendance in her classes, thus attractive to those students who are lazy at their studying. To demonstrate her actual popularity, a survey should be conducted among students to explore the real attitude of them (their real attitude看着别扭) towards Professor Thomas and their real incentive (心理学里面用motivation比较多，不知道有没有区别） to choose her （不对吧）courses. Even if Professor Thomas indeed enjoys high popularity among students, this cannot solely prove her teaching ability. As teaching ability comprises many aspects in addition to popularity, such as the ability to elaborate concepts （这个和后面的有点重复了）clearly, to organize teaching contents orderly, to intrigue students' interest, etc. Unless the author shows evidence of those abilities of Professor Thomas, we cannot be convinced of her teaching ability.
这个论点找得很准但是感觉有点罗索了:L

The second assumption of the author （the author's second assumption 或者是 the second assuption the author provided in the letter） is that research ability of Professor Thomas can be demonstrated in that the money （with the money that ）she has brought to the university in research grants has exceeded her salary in each of the last two years. It is ridiculous of the author to evaluate research ability by the fund she brought to the university. Possibly she is good at writing application letter (report to apply research expense) for money, therefore what brought the money is her writing ability rather than research ability (这个理由好像不是很成立，呵呵，因为写研究报告的能力也是研究能力的一种哦！). Even if we admit the correlation of received fund and research ability, we can still question whether she deserves a salary raise and promotion merely by the amount of money she brought （这个加薪没有说是她本人提出的呀？）. Since we do not know whether she only brought money to the university in the last two years（这个理由没有看懂）, neither do we know whether her research spending exceeded the money she brought. If these were the case, she actually made no contribution to the fund of the university. How can the committee justify the salary raise? What is more important, we cannot overlook other parameters of research ability （abilities因为你前面还说有很多方面呢）, such as the number of papers published in SCI periodicals, the prize she received and the significance of her research achievements. The author should provide evidence related to these aspects.
   
Even if Professor Thomas does have outstanding teaching and research abilities, it does not guarantee that she has managerial ability needed to be competent　（for Department Chairperson） for the position of Department Chairperson. As is known to all, management requires different abilities from either teaching or research, for example, the ability to make plans and allocate tasks as well as to exploit full potential of coworkers to achieve a goal. Evidence should be offered to testify her managerial ability to us. Also it should be taken into consideration that administrative responsibility may consume her time and energy which would otherwise be used in teaching and research.

Finally, the fear that Professor Thomas will leave Elm City University for another college is groundless. Her salary and status may already be good enough that she has no motivation to leave for another college in search of higher salary and status. Nevertheless, if she intends to leave, such compensation as salary raise and promotion may not work, since she may be unsatisfied with other factors like working environments or personal relationship.

In conclusion, this argument is invalid due to several unsubstantiated assumptions这个说法怪怪的. It is necessary for the author to provide more direct evidence to make the recommentation more persuative.The author needs to provide direct demonstration of Professor Thomas's teaching, research and managerial ability in order to justify the recommendation of salary raise and promotion.  

这篇文章写得有点罗嗦不如以前的写得那么有气势。结构层次可以显得更清楚一些。另外，个人意见，写的理由一定要非常有说服力，驳斥本身要有力度。:lol
总体而言写得很不错的。
加油哦！

azaleaUID: 196122

恩恩 是太长了 有些地方写得随意了 谢谢shirley了

加一UID: 2168628

呵呵,其实我真不觉得"Prof Thomas要走的猜测没有根据"是个错误,还在给cpu改的时候指出了他的"错误".我觉得要是学术委员会都知道Thomas和别的大学联系的时候,黄花菜都凉了...可能是我在IT企业工作,身边的人事变动比较频繁.明明周五还在和一个同事讨论一个基础问题,到了周一人就没了,而且全部门的人都2了..

azaleaUID: 196122

Originally posted by 加一 at 2005-12-25 23:55
呵呵,其实我真不觉得"Prof Thomas要走的猜测没有根据"是个错误,还在给cpu改的时候指出了他的"错误".我觉得要是学术委员会都知道Thomas和别的大学联系的时候,黄花菜都凉了...可能是我在IT企业 ...

大学不比企业哦 没事干谁会跳来跳去的
其实argu很多也是找茬 本来没什么大问题的

加一UID: 2168628

:)