ARGUMENT169 =August Rush=小组第6次作业 by crepuscularlyw

crepuscularlywUID: 2645654

TOPIC: ARGUMENT169 - The following appeared in a letter from a department chairperson to the president of Pierce University.

"Some studies conducted by Bronston College, which is also located in a small town, reveal that both male and female teachers are happier living in small towns when their spouses are also employed in the same geographic area. Therefore, in the interest of attracting the most gifted teachers and researchers to our faculty and improving the morale of our entire staff, we at Pierce University should offer employment to the spouse of each new faculty member we hire. Although we cannot expect all offers to be accepted or to be viewed as an ideal job offer, the money invested in this effort will clearly be well spent because, if their spouses have a chance of employment, new teachers will be more likely to accept our offers."
WORDS: 413+46
TIME: 00:38:42
DATE: 2009-8-1 0:55:04

In this argument, the chairperson recommends the president of PU offer employment to the spouse of each new faculty member they hire since the president believes that this action will attract the most gifted teachers and researchers and thus improve the morale of the entire staff. To support his recommendation, the chairperson cites some studies indicate that through offering spouses they will be able to attract teachers.

To begin with, the arguer makes a false analogy between BC and PU, taking it for granted that the results of the study in BC can also be used for PU. First of all, these two universities may not be the same level, it is possible that BC is much better than PU, in research equipment, working environment, salary and so on. Moreover, the location of PU may be worse than BC. In this situation, it is entirely possible that the famous teachers' spouse would not even interest in PU, let alone the teachers themselves. The arguer should provide us more information about the distinction between these two universities in order to make his claim more convinced.

Secondly, the arguer assumes that if the spouses of the teachers accept the offers and the teachers will likely to accept the offers as well. However, the arguer does not provide anything about the teachers' intention. What are the teachers put first when considering the jobs? Maybe the salaries or working environment and it could be better if they can have their spouses with them; however, it is not compulsory. In order to convince us of his claim, the chairperson should provide things like a survey, an investigation and so on to make sure that teachers put their spouses first when choosing a job.

Thirdly, having outstanding teachers in PU may not improve the morale of entire staff. It is possible that these eminent teachers are too supercilious and could not get on well with these normal teachers, it is even possible that the teachers' teaching methods are totally different from those of the original staff, it is also possible that since the school spend so much money on the new staffs so that the original staffs’ salary may drop down thus it is a question whether or not the morale can be improved.

To sum up, the arguer's recommendation is not persuasive. To bolster it, the arguer should reason more detailed and reasonable, provide us information about the standard of the teachers' choose of jobs. Again, the arguer should also provide us about the differences between BC and PU as well as evaluate all possibilities that the staff and teachers' get along with each other.

好几天没写了，都找不到感觉了。。。倒数第二段补了一点，第一次没驳那个survey~~
时间还是超了，怎么感觉A比I难写了。。。