Argument140

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."
(592 words)
In this argument, the author comes to the conclusion that Elm City University(ECU) should give professor Thomas, a contemporary faculty of botany, a exceeded salary for $10,000, and promote her to Department Chairperson. To justify the claim, the author points out that the classes teached by professor Thomas are among the largest at ECU. The author also cites that the money professor Thomas has brought to the university in research grants has exceeded her salary in each of the last two years. Such a reasoning seems to be logical, yet close scrutiny of this argument reveals that it is unconvicing in several aspects.First and foremost, the author unfairly claims that the fact that the classes teached by professor Thoma are among the largest at the ECU is the result of Thoma's popularity rather than some other explanation. It is highly possible that the botany class she teached is compulsory, so there is a number of students have to attend her class, no matter like it or not. Even if the class was not compulsory, it's also highly possible that Thoma is the only faculty in ECU who teached fundamental botany, so any student who would like to know some basic of botany have no choice but to her class, or the reason why so many students came to the class only because the exam of this class was easy, and Thoma always gave a high point. Since the author fails to account for these alternative explanation, any sound inference can't be made.In addition, the author highly appraised the money Thoma brought to ECU, mention that such a money was beyond her salary in each of the last two years. However, the author didn't mention other faculty, maybe the money many other professor brought to the university in research were also more than their salary, even far more than Thoma. Without such a comparison, the author can't convice me that Thoma did a better job than others in research. Moreover, the data used to explain how much money Thomas earned were just about the last two years. Since she has worked in ECU for 17 years, we have a reason the know how she did her research in the beginning 15 years. Finally, even if Thomas did better job than other professor, the author didn't say exactly how much is the number the benefit she brought exceeding her salary, so there is no reason to raise her salary for as high as $10,000, maybe such a large number is already beyond the money she earned. Furthermore, the author didn't substantiate Thomas's qualification for Department Chairperson. The job of management varies from the teaching and research, is Thomas competent for a chairperson, we don't know; is there any person, maybe someone had similar experience, who is more suitable to get the position? Is it sure that Thoma will go to another university if she doesn't have her salary raised? We still don't know. Without answering all of these questions, we can't come to the conclusion that Thoma is decent to be paid $10,000 raise, let alone a promotion to Department Chairperson. In sum, the conclusion reached in this argument is invalid and misleading. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer would have to prove that professor Thoma does a better teaching and researching than most of the faculty. Moreover, I would suspend my judgement about the credibility of the this argument until the author can provide more information about the necessity to have Thoma's salary risen and the rationality of the promition.