Please rate my first argument! I'm taking AWA on 2.18，running out of t

[Wuz1990]

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 professors 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 professors will be more likely to accept our offers."

Grounding on some studies conducted by Bronston College, which is also located in a small town, which reveal that professors are more likely to live in small towns when their spouses are also employed in the same region, assuming that new professors will be more likely to accept the university’s offers if their spouse have a chance of employment, the author accordingly recommends that Pierce University should offer employment to the spouse of each new faculty member we hire in order to attract the most gifted teachers and researchers. Convincing as it seems, close scrutiny of the argument reveals that if suffers from several logical flaws.

First of all, the arguer fails to substantiate that providing employment for the professor's spouse will necessarily contribute to the professors' accepting the university's offer. The author provides no direct evidence that the employment of their spouses play an important part in the professors choosing a job. Common sense informs me that professors are more concerned with factors such as a high level of salary, outstanding laboratory equipment, sufficient research funds when choosing where to work. Without more evidence regarding the influence of their spouses' employment on the professors' choice, the arguer's conclusion is dubious at best.

Secondly, even assuming that professors chose to work in Bronston College because their spouses are offered jobs, the argument suffers from a false analogy. Granted that Bronston College and Pierce University are all located in a small town, there are many other possible differences between the two small towns which may have a great influence on the professors' choice, such as climate, geographic features, living expenditures, etc. Therefore the Pierce University may not receive the same effect as Bronton College even if the same policy is carried out. This scenario, if true, will undermine the author's conclusion.

Last but not least, even assuming that the two towns are comparable, the proposal lacks feasibility. The author fails to evaluate whether the proposal could be carried out as expected. There is no evidence that the local companies have enough vacant jobs and that they are willing to give these jobs to the professors' spouses. Additionally, no information regarding what kind of jobs will be offered and whether the spouses are capable of doing those jobs is provided. Unless the arguer could provide more evidence, the feasibility of the proposal is suspicious.

In conclusion, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To strengthen it the author must provide more evidence to establish a causal relationship between the employment of their spouses and the professors' choice. The arguer should also provide evidence that the two small towns are indeed comparable and that the proposal is feasible.