Argument140 [perseverance小组]第二次作业by 执着

wchao69UID: 2209794

argument140

In this report, the arguer reaches an conclusion that unless the Committee on Faculty Promotion and Salaries at Elm City University (ECU) should render Professor Thomas (PT) a promotion and a salary raise, the professor would leave ECU for other colleges. To bolster his/her conclusion, the arguer points out that PT has the largest classes at the university and she has brought more research grants than her salary, all of which are presented to demonstrate PT's great teaching and research abilities. At first glance, this report appears to be somewhat plausible, however, a further reflection reveals that this analysis are flawed for lacking some more convincing evidence.

To begin with, the first and also the most glaring fallacy in this argument is the fallacy of "correlation to causation", since a groundless assumption is made that PT has an excellent teaching and research ability. Firstly, the assumption that the popularity of Thomas' class contributes to her effectiveness and ability overlooks other possibilities for the popularity of her class. It is entirely possible that the course Thomas teaches is the essential and compulsory course to the students, and the students have to attend the class. Or perhaps, students want to choose her classes just because Thomas's classes are not so difficult to pass as other teachers' do. Therefore, to support his/her recommendation, the report should provide more evidence.

Secondly, it obviously needs to be well-considered that PT's research ability just because she has bought to the university more money in research grands than her salary in the last two years. The report fails to take into account the possibility that the data of last two years amounted to an aberration, and that in most other years Thomas has actually brought less money. Or perhaps, the reporter omits the possibility that Thomas spent more money to do her research than the amount she brought to the university. Without considering these or other alternative explanations for PT's popularity of her classes and she contributes more to the university than she takes in research, the reporter can't make any convincing conclusion that PT has a demonstrated teaching and research abilities.

Finally, even if I were to concede that Thomas has excellent abilities in teaching and research, it is still unfair for the arguer to assume that PT would leave ECU because she has not got a raise and promotion. The argument commits a fallacy of "causal oversimplification". The arguer overlooks other possible reasons that PT would like to stay in ECU even though she does not get enough from the university that she deserves. There is a good chance that PT like the environment, her colleagues and her students here and she does not care too much about the money. Or perhaps, she likes teaching and doing research but not administration, so that she does not want to get a promotion albeit she could. Thus, the arguer's failure to consider PT's feeling or other explanations that she does not need a raise or promotion renders the conclusion highly suspect.

In sum, this report is logically flawed and therefore unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it, the arguer should provide more substaintial evidence to demonstrate that PT has demonstrated abilities in teaching and research and would leave ECU without such a raise and promotion.

gyyxUID: 2290150

In this report, the arguer reaches an conclusion that unless the Committee on Faculty Promotion and Salaries at Elm City University (ECU) should render Professor Thomas (PT) a promotion and a salary raise, the professor would leave ECU for other colleges. To bolster his/her conclusion, the arguer points out that PT has the largest classes at the university and she has brought more research grants than her salary, all of which are presented to demonstrate PT's great teaching and research abilities. At first glance, this report appears to be somewhat plausible, however, a further reflection reveals that this analysis are flawed for lacking some more convincing evidence.

To begin with, the first and also the most glaring fallacy in this argument is the fallacy of "correlation to causation", since a groundless assumption is made that PT has an excellent teaching and research ability. Firstly, the assumption that the popularity of Thomas' class contributes to her effectiveness and ability overlooks other possibilities for the popularity of her class. It is entirely possible that the course Thomas teaches is the essential and compulsory course to the students, and the students have to attend the class. Or perhaps, students want to choose her classes just because Thomas's classes are not so difficult to pass as other teachers' do.【do改成are吧】 Therefore, to support his/her recommendation, the report should provide more evidence.
                                      【arguer】
Secondly, it obviously needs to be well-considered that PT's research ability just because she has bought to the university
             【觉得后面应该有成分，这个句子没太看懂，建议在research ability后加上is good】
more money in research grands than her salary in the last two years. The report fails to take into account the possibility that the data of last two years amounted to an aberration, and that in most other years Thomas has actually brought less money. Or perhaps, the reporter omits the possibility that Thomas spent more money to do her research than the amount she brought to the university. Without considering these or other alternative
                                                                                                               [those]
explanations for PT's popularity of her classes and she contributes more to the university than she takes in research, the reporter can't make any convincing conclusion that PT has a demonstrated teaching and research abilities.
[这段不是要驳斥他的研究能力吗？教学能力是不是就先不考虑了？]

Finally, even if I were to concede that Thomas has excellent abilities in teaching and research, it is still unfair for the arguer to assume that PT would leave ECU because she has not got a raise and promotion. The argument commits a fallacy of "causal oversimplification". The arguer overlooks other possible reasons that PT would like to stay in ECU even though she does not get enough from the university that she deserves. There is a good chance that PT like the environment, her colleagues and her students here and she does not care too much about the money. Or perhaps, she likes teaching and doing research but not administration, so that she does not want to get a promotion albeit she could. Thus, the arguer's failure to consider PT's feeling or other explanations that she does not need a raise or promotion renders the conclusion highly suspect.

In sum, this report is logically flawed and therefore unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it, the arguer should provide more substaintial evidence to demonstrate that PT has demonstrated abilities in teaching and research and would leave ECU without such a raise and promotion.
【思路很好的说，比我写的那个强很多，读了一遍，把没太读懂的地方标记了下。交流下吧】

[ 本帖最后由 gyyx 于 2007-6-3 11:01 编辑 ]