argument140 51互助组第2次作业 by ruczephyr

ruczephyrUID: 2181202

TOPIC: 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."
WORDS: 496          TIME: 0:44:04          DATE: 2007-5-24

In this argument, the author strongly suggests that they should offer a raise of salary and a promotion to Department Chairperson to Professor Thomas, on the basis of her so-called demonstrated teaching and research abilities. It looks reasonable ostensive, however, in-depth scrutiny reveals that the author has committed several logical fallacies which seriously undermine the credibility of the argument.

First and foremost, the author unfairly links popularity of a teacher with the number of students who attends the very teacher's classes.   The author does not provide any sound evidence to show that the number of  students who are really enjoying Professor Thomas' classes is that large as the author imagined, it is entirely possible that most of the students are forced to do so in case that they are able to have high scores in the final exams. Also, I can not exclude the possibility that the subjects Professor Thomas teaches are the most elementary ones, most of the students are required to pass such subjects in order to further expand their studies. While on contrary, other subjects taught by someone else, though suitable for fewer amount of students, receive more eulogies of the students. Under such circumstance, to asserts that Professor Thomas is the most popular teachers in the school is rather unconvincing.

What is more, simply put, without convincing me that her researching abilities are as good as depicted, such $10000 raise of salary for Professor Thomas is ungrounded. As evidence, the author mentions the amount of research fund she brought to the university far more exceeded her salary. However, the ability of bringing research fund to university does not equals to researching ability. Possibly, Professor Thomas can do nothing but to ask for patronage from some commercial companies, and her actual researching production turned out to be so weak. Additional, it is also possible that her university or department does not experience a lack of research fund, the money allocated to them far more exceeded their need. To such extent, incredible assertion of  Professor Thomas' excellent research ability deserves a raise of salary again weaks the credibility of the argument.

In addition, without necessary comparison between Professor Thomas and the present Department Chairperson, the author illogically suggests that Professor Thomas should take the place of the present one.  Even grant all the advantages of Professor mentioned in the argument, as the author offers no comparing statistic of the present Department Chairperson, perhaps the classes of the present Chairperson, his research fund brought to the university are far more  leading Professor Thomas. If this is the case, even Professor Thomas is really outstanding, that is no reason to have her replaced the present Department Chairperson.

To sum up, based on such defects above, the argument can not successfully convince to support the author's suggestion. To better modify the argument, the author needs to provide some extra information about overall teaching and researching ability of Professor Thomas and objective comparisons between her and her colleagues.

[ 本帖最后由 lastangel 于 2007-5-26 23:25 编辑 ]

布兜兜UID: 2253272

In this argument, the author strongly suggests that they should offer a raise of salary and a promotion to Department Chairperson to Professor Thomas, on the basis of her so-called demonstrated teaching and research abilities. It looks reasonable ostensive, however, in-depth scrutiny reveals that the author has committed several logical fallacies which seriously undermine the credibility of the argument.First and foremost, the author unfairly links popularity of a teacher with the number of students who attends the very teacher's classes.   The author does not provide any sound evidence to show that the number of  students who are really enjoying Professor Thomas' classes is that large as the author imagined, it is entirely possible that most of the students are forced to do so in case that they are able to have high scores in the final exams. 这个错误感觉不是很准确，如果是为了学分，学生完全可以选择其他的课程。Also, I can not exclude the possibility that the subjects Professor Thomas teaches are the most elementary ones, most of the students are required to pass such subjects in order to further expand their studies. While on contrary, other subjects taught by someone else, though suitable for fewer amount of students, receive more eulogies of the students. Under such circumstance, to assert that Professor Thomas is the most popular teachers in the school is rather unconvincing.What is more, simply put, without convincing me that her researching abilities are as good as depicted, such $10000 raise of salary for Professor Thomas is ungrounded. As evidence, the author mentions the amount of research fund she brought to the university far more exceeded her salary. However, the ability of bringing research fund to university does not equals to researching ability. Possibly, Professor Thomas can do nothing but to ask for patronage from some commercial companies, and her actual researching production turned out to be so weak. 感觉有一点薄弱，要是t的研究能力很差，企业为什么会给赞助呢。也许是因为社交能力好？再加这样一句感觉会更有力 Additional, it is also possible that her university or department does not experience a lack of research fund, the money allocated to them far more exceeded their need. 错误找的很好，但是论证感觉不够到位，如果说有可能其他和t同样的教授比t拉的赞助更多，所以t的情况不算优秀。会不会好些？个人浅见>< To such extent, incredible assertion of  Professor Thomas' excellent research ability deserves a raise of salary again weaks the credibility of the argument.In addition, without necessary comparison between Professor Thomas and the present Department Chairperson, the author illogically suggests that Professor Thomas should take the place of the present one.  Even grant all the advantages of Professor mentioned in the argument, as the author offers no comparing statistic of the present Department Chairperson, perhaps the classes of the present Chairperson, his research fund brought to the university are far more  leading Professor Thomas. If this is the case, even Professor Thomas is really outstanding, that is no reason to have her replaced the present Department Chairperson.这个错误我没挑出来，学习之To sum up, based on such defects above, the argument can not successfully convince to support the author's suggestion. To better modify the argument, the author needs to provide some extra information about overall teaching and researching ability of Professor Thomas and objective comparisons between her and her colleagues.

gluttonUID: 2330210

In this argument, the author strongly suggests that they should offer a raise of salary and a promotion to Department Chairperson to Professor Thomas, on the basis of her so-called demonstrated teaching and research abilities. It looks reasonable ostensive, however, in-depth scrutiny reveals that the author has committed several logical fallacies which seriously undermine the credibility of the argument.

First and foremost,(foremost 感觉不该用，感觉文章最主要逻辑错误是理所当然认为give him a raise and a promotion之后她就不离开学校了) the author unfairly links popularity of a teacher with the number of students who attends the very teacher's classes.   The author does not provide any sound evidence to show that the number of  students who are really enjoying Professor Thomas' classes is that large as the author imagined, it is entirely possible that most of the students are forced to do so in case that they are able to have high scores in the final exams. Also, I can not exclude the possibility that the subjects Professor Thomas teaches are the most elementary ones, most of the students are required to pass such subjects in order to further expand their studies. While on contrary, other subjects taught by someone else, though suitable for fewer amount of students, receive more eulogies of the students. Under such circumstance, to asserts that Professor Thomas is the most popular teachers in the school is rather unconvincing.

What is more, simply put, without convincing me that her researching abilities are as good as depicted, such $10000 raise of salary for Professor Thomas is ungrounded. As evidence, the author mentions the amount of research fund she brought to the university far more exceeded her salary. However, the ability of bringing research fund to university does not equals to researching ability. （这样论证感觉不好，感觉是在专空子，应该去找一些文章的逻辑错误更有说服力一些，比如说与其它professor比，她的fund要少的多，不就证明了她的研究能力很一般吗？）Possibly, Professor Thomas can do nothing but to ask for patronage from some commercial companies, and her actual researching production turned out to be so weak. Additional, it is also possible that her university or department does not experience a lack of research fund, the money allocated to them far more exceeded their need. （这个错误感觉找的也不好，学校不缺钱就证明她的research fund 没有用吗？她就不该得到raise 吗）To such extent, incredible assertion of  Professor Thomas' excellent research ability deserves a raise of salary again weaks the credibility of the argument.

In addition, without necessary comparison between Professor Thomas and the present Department Chairperson, the author illogically suggests that Professor Thomas should take the place of the present one.  Even grant all the advantages of Professor mentioned in the argument, as the author offers no comparing statistic of the present Department Chairperson, perhaps the classes of the present Chairperson, his research fund brought to the university are far more  leading Professor Thomas. If this is the case, even Professor Thomas is really outstanding, that is no reason to have her replaced the present Department Chairperson.

To sum up, based on such defects above, the argument can not successfully convince to support the author's suggestion. To better modify the argument, the author needs to provide some extra information about overall teaching and researching ability of Professor Thomas and objective comparisons between her and her colleagues.

感觉这篇argument 没有issue写的好，如果一针见血的指出，money和promotion都不能挽留住professor，原文的其它理由不都是多余的了吗？有时间看下我的 thanks
by  无边无际

[ 本帖最后由 glutton 于 2007-5-25 18:28 编辑 ]

为了忘记UID: 2317994

In this argument, the author strongly suggests that they should offer a raise of salary and a promotion to Department Chairperson to Professor Thomas, on the basis of her so-called demonstrated teaching and research abilities. It looks reasonable ostensive, however, in-depth scrutiny reveals that the author has committed several logical fallacies which seriously undermine the credibility of the argument.

First and foremost, the author unfairly links popularity of a teacher with the number of students who attends the very teacher's classes.   The author does not provide any sound evidence to show that the number of  students who are really enjoying Professor Thomas' classes is that large as the author imagined, it is entirely possible that most of the students are forced to do so in case that they are able to have high scores in the final exams. Also, I can not exclude the possibility that the subjects Professor Thomas teaches are the most elementary ones, most of the students are required to pass such subjects in order to further expand their studies. While on contrary, other subjects taught by someone else, though suitable for fewer amount of students, receive more eulogies of the students. Under such circumstance, to asserts[assert] that Professor Thomas is the most popular teachers[单复数不一致吧] in the school is rather unconvincing.

What is more, simply put, without convincing me that her researching abilities are as good as depicted, such $10000 raise of salary for Professor Thomas is ungrounded. As evidence, the author mentions the amount of research fund she brought to the university far more exceeded her salary. However, the ability of bringing research fund to university does not equals[单复数] to researching ability. Possibly, Professor Thomas can do nothing but to ask for patronage from some commercial companies, and her actual researching production turned out to be so weak. Additional, it is also possible that her university or department does not experience a lack of research fund, the money allocated to them far more exceeded their need.[这个观点有点牵强吧] To such extent, incredible assertion of  Professor Thomas' excellent research ability deserves a raise of salary again weaks the credibility of the argument.

In addition, without necessary comparison between Professor Thomas and the present Department Chairperson, the author illogically suggests that Professor Thomas should take the place of the present one.  Even grant all the advantages of Professor mentioned in the argument, as the author offers no comparing statistic of the present Department Chairperson, perhaps the classes of the present Chairperson, his research fund brought to the university are far more  leading Professor Thomas. If this is the case, even Professor Thomas is really outstanding, that is no reason to have her replaced the present Department Chairperson.[可能现在Department Chairperson 的位置正空缺，而作者认为Professor Thomas 正适合这个位置。所以个人感觉把她和现任Chairperson比较不太合理，不如直接讨论她有没有能力坐这个位置]

To sum up, based on such defects above, the argument can not successfully convince to support the author's suggestion. To better modify the argument, the author needs to provide some extra information about overall teaching and researching ability of Professor Thomas and objective comparisons between her and her colleagues.
[水晶的作文水平是大家公认的了，优点我就不重复了，下次注意一下单复数的问题。加油！]