argument140 (gogogo)

orange0770UID: 2122654

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."

Outline 1 指出作者犯了因果错误和无理假设错误。
      2 ○1班级大不意味着教学水平高，可能是botany 本身很火或缺乏老师导致的。
        ○2即使钱够多，也不能证明科研能力强;拉到的科研经费超过其工资并不意味着经费充足，需要看实际需要；即使充足，也只包括过去两年，而她在学校已经17年了，之前15年情况不明。
      3 即使教学科研能力强，未必适合做Department Chairperson,没有说明其管理能力，为其加薪能否促进其工作业绩的进一步提高也是未知数。
      4，arguer的假设没有证据支持，学校若想挽留应同当事人沟通，了解其理由，再拿出解决办法。
      5 总结作者所犯错误；若想提升该教授应对其进行详细全面的评估，并与其沟通。

In this argument the arguer concludes that Elm City University should provide Professor Thomas a $10,000 raise and a promotion to Department Chairperson. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer points out that Professor Thomas has outstanding teaching and research abilities and is worth her annual salary of $50,000. Moreover, the arguer assumes that without such a raise and promotion, Professor Thomas will leave Elm City University for another college. The argument seems at first glance to be a reasonable conclusion; however, it is unconvincing for cause-effect fallacies and incredible assumption. The arguer fails to establish the causal relationship between Professor Thomas’ performance and her promotion. Besides, there is no evidence to prove that without the raise, she will leave the university. The statement may lead to appoint an unsuitable person and waste money.

To begin with, the arguer tries to establish a causal relationship between large classes and research grants and Professor Thomas’ excellent teaching and research abilities. However, large classes do not necessarily indicate popularity among students. It is possible that only because her subject is popular and students in this field are easy to find jobs after graduation, many students sign up for her class. It is also possible that there are not enough teachers to teach the subject, so Professor Thomas has to teach most of the students. In addition, the ability to bring in research grants is not equal to the ability to do research. It is the valuable study fruit that prove one’s ability. Yet the arguer fails to provide the result records of Professor Thomas’ research. What is more, the arguer provide no information about how much money did she bring to the university and whether that could meet the need of the research. For example, if she had brought $5,500 in last year, but the demand had been $8,000, then she was still unsuccessful in raising money, even though that had exceeded her salary. Furthermore, even if the money is enough in last two years, there is no clue about the condition of the other 15 years when she may collect much less money. In short, there is no evidence to support the statement that Professor Thomas has exceptional teaching and research abilities.

Even though Professor Thomas is good at teaching and researching, she may not be adept at management and be competent for Department Chairperson. Being a Chairperson, one must have great foresight, good management and the ability of dealing with social activities. The competence of a good Chairperson is different from that of a good teacher. Therefore the arguer fails to convince us that Professor Thomas is suitable for the position. Additionally, whether the raises of $10,000 will improve her performance is under question. Also, does she deserve the money only because she is popular among students and has brought in research grants? If there is someone more popular and more capable of collecting money, should he be given more bonus and promoted to the president of the university?

Finally, the arguer assumes that without such a raise and promotion, Professor Thomas will leave the University for another college. However, no evidence is provided in the statement to substantiate the assumption. Possibly, Professor Thomas is happy with her job and wants to stay for the rest of her career. And if she wants to move to a new college, she may leave for various reasons: better climate, more advanced research condition, further education, etc. As a result, a raise and promotion may not be sufficient to keep her.

In sum, the conclusion is unconvincing and the assumption is groundless. To strengthen the argument, the arguer must evaluate the performance of Professor Thomas thoroughly and reach a mutual understanding between them.

619words  时间就不写了，实在太长了。

[ Last edited by 11yaoyao on 2005-12-24 at 09:25 ]

neverstopcowUID: 2149686

Outline 1 指出作者犯了因果错误和无理假设错误。
      2 ○1班级大不意味着教学水平高，可能是botany 本身很火或缺乏老师导致的。
        ○2即使钱够多，也不能证明科研能力强;拉到的科研经费超过其工资并不意味着经费充足，需要看实际需要；即使充足，也只包括过去两年，而她在学校已经17年了，之前15年情况不明。
      3 即使教学科研能力强，未必适合做Department Chairperson,没有说明其管理能力，为其加薪能否促进其工作业绩的进一步提高也是未知数。
      4，arguer的假设没有证据支持，学校若想挽留应同当事人沟通，了解其理由，再拿出解决办法。
      5 总结作者所犯错误；若想提升该教授应对其进行详细全面的评估，并与其沟通。

In this argument the arguer concludes that Elm City University should provide Professor Thomas ( with) a $10,000 raise and a promotion to Department Chairperson. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer points out that Professor Thomas has outstanding teaching and research abilities and is worth her annual salary of $50,000. Moreover, the arguer assumes (assume确实比worry好多了阿，学习ing) that without such a raise and promotion, Professor Thomas will leave Elm City University for another college. The argument seems at first glance to be a reasonable conclusion; however, it is unconvincing for cause-effect fallacies and incredible assumption. The arguer fails to establish the causal relationship between Professor Thomas’ performance and her promotion. Besides, there is no evidence to prove that without the raise, she will leave the university. The statement may lead to appoint an unsuitable person and waste money.

To begin with, the arguer tries to establish a causal relationship between large classes and research grants and Professor Thomas’ excellent teaching and research abilities.(这一句对应关系太难看了吧，and太多了，改为a causal relationship between large classes and Professor Thomas’ excellent teaching ability as well as great research money and research ability) However, large classes do not necessarily(试想说必然把 试试这样改会不会好点：do not take her popularity among students for granted 我也不确定) indicate popularity among students. It is possible that only because her subject is popular and students in this field are easy to find jobs after graduation, (中间好像还差个that)many students sign up for her class. It is also possible that (another possibility is that 跟前面有点区别可能好些:))there are not enough teachers to teach the subject, so Professor Thomas has to teach most of the students. In addition, the ability to bring in research grants is not equal to the ability to do research. It is the （only）valuable study fruit that (can)prove one’s ability. Yet the arguer fails to provide the result records of Professor Thomas’ research. What is more, the arguer provide no information about how much money did she bring to the university and whether that could meet the need of the research. For example, if she had brought $5,500 in last year, but the demand had been $8,000, then she was still unsuccessful in raising money, even though that had exceeded her salary. Furthermore, even if the money is enough in last two years, there is no clue about the condition of the other 15 years when she may collect much less money. In short, there is no evidence to support the statement that Professor Thomas has exceptional teaching and research abilities.

Even though Professor Thomas is good at teaching and researching, she may not be adept at management and be competent for Department Chairperson. Being a Chairperson, one must have great foresight, good management and the ability of dealing with social activities. The competence(表竞争力的八，用ability就可以了吧) of a good Chairperson is different from that of a good teacher. Therefore the arguer fails to convince us that Professor Thomas is suitable for the position. Additionally, whether the raises of $10,000 will improve her performance is under question. Also, does she deserve the money only because she is popular among students and has brought in research grants? If there is someone more popular and more capable of collecting money, should he be given more bonus and promoted to the president of the university?

Finally, the arguer assumes that without such a raise and promotion, Professor Thomas will leave the University for another college. However, no evidence is provided in the statement to substantiate the assumption. Possibly, Professor Thomas is happy with her job and wants to stay for the rest of her career. And if she wants to move to a new college, she may leave for various reasons: better climate, more advanced research condition, further education, etc. As a result, a raise and promotion may not be sufficient to keep（感觉没用对词，stay?好像也不好，在想想） her.

In sum, the conclusion is unconvincing and the assumption is groundless. To strengthen the argument, the arguer must evaluate the performance of Professor Thomas thoroughly and reach a mutual understanding between them. （这句话好像有点只待不明，楼主是不是写到最后没劲了？感觉结尾有点仓促）

逻辑上没什么毛病，句式也比较通顺，语言还需稍稍修改修改
我想argu看看别人的提纲，在自己找找错一般没有很大问题  最大的问题就是语言   如何能把一句话写得更有说服力是我们共同努力的目标  加油把！