TOPIC: ARGUMENT221 - The following appeared in the editorial section of a student newspaper.

　　"In a recent survey, most students who were studying beginning Russian gave higher course-evaluation ratings to classes taught by non-native Russian speakers than to classes taught by native Russian speakers. The reason that the non-native speakers were better teachers of Russian is easy to see: the non-native speakers learned Russian later in life themselves, and so they have a better understanding of how the language can be taught effectively. Therefore, in order to improve instruction for all languages and also save money, our university should hire non-native speakers as language instructors instead of trying to find and recruit native speakers."

　　WORDS: 495 TIME: 0:29:00 DATE: 2007-8-10

　　In this argument the arguer comes to the conclusion that by hiring non-native speakers rather than native ones as language instructors, their university will improve instruction for all languages and save money. To justify the conclusion, the author cites a recent survey that most students in beginning Russian gave higher course-evaluation ratings to classes taught by non-native Russian speakers than to classes taught by native Russian speakers. The author also points out that non-native speakers have a better understanding of how to teach the language effectively. However, close scrutiny of this argument reveals that it is unconvincing in several aspects.

　　To begin with, the survey must be showed to be reliable before I can accept any conclusion the author arrives at based on it. However, the author shows no information about the number of students participated in the survey. Moreover, since the survey only covers students from beginning Russian classes, it is entirely possible that they are in fact not representative of all those students learning Russian, which renders the inference based upon it highly suspect.

　　In addition, the author fails to take into account other factors that may have an influence on the speakers' instruction. It might be sure that non-native speakers learned Russian later in life themselves and thus knew how to learn it more effectively, yet perhaps they could only teach how to start the learning of Russian. Common sense tells us that native speakers have a more in-depth comprehension of the culture of there language, which plays an important role in learning a language in high levels. Thus, students might not accept the nonnative speakers at all.

　　Finally, the author unfairly claims that the implementation of hiring more non-native speakers will improve instruction for all languages and save money for their university. First, even if that non-native Russian speakers can give better instruction than native Russian speakers, the author tend to assume that all languages are the same with Russian. Yet the arguer fails to prove this poor assumption. Second, the author gives no information about how much salaries of each non-native speakers and native speakers, and it is quite possible that they these speakers do have the same salaries or that some non-native speakers may charge more money than native speakers as a result of the author's recommendation. For that matter, hiring more non-native speakers will not save money at all.

　　In sum, the conclusion reached in the argument is invalid and misleading. To make it logically acceptable, the author should have to demonstrate that the survey in the argument is reliable and the learning of Russian is really the same with other foreign languages. Moreover, I would suspend my judgment about the credibility of this argument until the arguer can provide more information about whether all students from both beginning classes and high-level classes will find such a recommendation exciting and whether the implementation of hiring more non-native speakers rather than native speakers will save money for their university.

　　TOPIC: ARGUMENT137 - The following appeared in an editorial in the Mason City newspaper.

　　"At present, Mason City residents seldom use the nearby Mason River for any kind of recreational activity, even though surveys of the region's residents consistently rank water sports (swimming, fishing, and boating) as a favorite form of recreation. Since there have been complaints about the quality of the water in the river, residents must be avoiding the river because they think that it is not clean enough. But that situation is about to change: the agency responsible for rivers in our region has announced plans to clean up Mason River. Therefore, recreational use of the river is likely to increase, so the Mason City council will need to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River."

　　WORDS: 584 TIME: 0:29:00 DATE: 2007-8-10

　　In this argument the author comes to the conclusion that the Mason River will change to be clean and the Mason City council will need to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River. To justify the conclusion, the author points out that residents complaint about th4e quality of water in the river and they seldom use it. The author also points out that plans to clean up Mason River have been announced by the agency responsible for rivers in their region. Close scrutiny of this argument reveals that it is unconvincing in several aspects.

　　To begin with, the author unfairly assumes that people in Mason City rarely use the Mason River is due to that they think the water in the river is not clean. The only evidence the author gives is that there have been complaints about the quality of the water in the river, yet it is insufficient to prove his poor assumption. It is quite possible that only a small percent of residents there complain about the water quality, but the majority of people are satisfied about it or pay no attention to it at all. Perhaps due to some other reasons, such as that they consider it dangerous to do water sports in the river for it is too deep, they seldom use the Mason River. Without ruling out all other reasons that may lead to the rare use of the river, the author cannot convince me that after the river is cleaned up people will tend to use if for recreational activity.

　　In addition, the author claims that plans to clean up Mason River has been announced, but this fact contribute little to support that recreational use of the river will increase. First, the plan has not yet been put into practice and it is entirely possible that it will never been put into practice for some other more urgent social problems that the city need to solve. Second, even if that water in the river can become clean in the future, it is not necessary that residents in Mason City will use the river more often. Perhaps they do not have enough time to play on the river although they expect to, for some reasons about their work or something else; or perhaps they are not interested in recreational use of the river at all.

　　Finally, even if that all the foregoing assumptions are justified, the argument still suffers from claiming that the city need to increase its budget for improvements to the publicly owned lands along the Mason River. The arguer shows no evidence that people use the river for recreational activities will to some extent complain about the lands along the river. Perhaps the lands is of enough high quality already. Lacking evidence that the lands need to be improved, I can not accept that increasing its budget for the lands is a must.

　　In sum, the conclusion reached in this argument is invalid and misleading. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer should have to demonstrate that most people complain about the quality of the water in Mason River and that the plans to clean up the river will soon be put into practice, leading to higher quality of water in the river. Moreover, I would suspend my judgment about the credibility of this argument until the author can provide more evidence about whether the lands of the river is of poor quality and need to be improved.