注册 登录  
 加关注
   显示下一条  |  关闭
温馨提示!由于新浪微博认证机制调整,您的新浪微博帐号绑定已过期,请重新绑定!立即重新绑定新浪微博》  |  关闭

Bioinformatics home

 
 
 

日志

 
 

argument  

2008-08-06 23:08:55|  分类: 默认分类 |  标签: |举报 |字号 订阅

  下载LOFTER 我的照片书  |
题目:ARGUMENT110 - The following appeared in a memo from the Principal of Sherwood Junior High School.

The arguments claims that students' academic performance and teachers' morale can be improved by using Day Glow light bulbs in winter. To support the opinion, the author points out that lighting in Sherwood High's classrooms have large windows leads to impairing of student academic performance and teacher morale, because a survey conducted from December and January indicates that, the fewest hours of daylight attendance rates fall, average daily class participation drops, grades decline, and teacher resignation are also highest during two months. However, a similar survey conducted in Vocational School which experiences entire seasons with little daylight shows students’ grade point averages increased when Day Glow light bulbs. In my opinion, however, I believe that there is little credible evidence to draw so suspicious conclusion for following reasons.
First of all, the argument unfairly assumes that the light in classroom should be responsible for student academic performance and teacher morale. There is no any direct scientific data to support the idea. It is highly possible that students in Vocational School were experienced a strict study arrangement and were assiduous in diary course. It is also possible that Vocational School employee more excel teachers who have ample knowledge or teaching experience. Perhaps, the tests in the school are easy. All of these possibilities can be the reason of increasing grade point averages for students in Vocational School. Under this circumstance, obviously, Day Glow Light bulbs have nothing to do with student's performance.
Even if there is some relevance between students' performance and lighting in class, the validation of survey which conducted during December and January is highly suspicious. Two months is not enough long to examine the impact from lighting. In two months, there are many other possibilities to satisfy the survey results. Perhaps, the local temperature decreases so sharply that many students catch a cold and the attendance rates fall. Perhaps, there is traffic problem which results in falling of attendance. Furthermore, it is possible that the tests held in December and January are very difficult and students' grade drops. Perhaps, students may attend some social activities which occupy student's time and generate a negative impact on grades.
What is more absurd in the results of arguments is that the light should be billed for high teacher resignation. Perhaps there happens something which may affect teachers’ well-being, such as arrears in salary, low welfare, bad working condition and so forth. Without considering and ruling out so many possibilities, the argument can't persuade me to believe that changing lighting in classroom can favor student performance and teacher morale.
In sum, the author cites an incredible example as survey samples and also conducts a survey with highly suspicious results in Sherwood High School, then hasty draw the conclusion that using Day Glow light bulbs in winter can improve students' academic performance. Obviously, the conclusion is full of fallacy. We can't accept the opinion.
  评论这张
 
阅读(439)| 评论(0)
推荐 转载

历史上的今天

在LOFTER的更多文章

评论

<#--最新日志,群博日志--> <#--推荐日志--> <#--引用记录--> <#--博主推荐--> <#--随机阅读--> <#--首页推荐--> <#--历史上的今天--> <#--被推荐日志--> <#--上一篇,下一篇--> <#-- 热度 --> <#-- 网易新闻广告 --> <#--右边模块结构--> <#--评论模块结构--> <#--引用模块结构--> <#--博主发起的投票-->
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

页脚

网易公司版权所有 ©1997-2017