Name: Vuong Dieu Linh

Group: QH2013.E2

ARGUMENTATIVE SYNTHESIS
Nowadays, teachers are believed to play a crucial role in education, not merely as
the instructors to provide students with knowledge but also the nurses, the psychologists
and even the dedicated parents to children. However, there is a controversy over values of
teacher and how they should be paid. While some people, especially those working in
teaching profession insist on higher salary, others assert that teachers are overpaid. In the
two articles The High Cost of Low Teacher Salaries by Dave Eggers in The New York
Times (30th April 2011) and How Teachers can be Both Undervalued and Overpaid
written by Jeffrey Brown on The Forbes (24th January 2012), the authors are of the same
mind about the fact that teachers are underrated by society but contradict each other when
it comes to teacher salaries. Even though both authors have fallacy in their arguments,
Browns arguments are more persuasive than Eggerss through the objective viewpoint and
effective use of evidence.
First of all, there are false analogies in both articles. In The High Cost of Low
Teacher Salaries, Eggers (2011) tries to make comparison between teachers and soldiers
regarding the responsibility for the job and awarding at the beginning to prove that teachers
are treated unfairly (par 1, 2 & 3). Teachers are blamed for bad results of students and any
school problems, are restricted on their salaries rather than receiving better support like
soldiers. It appers to be a sound argument at first but actually the fault comes from the

fundamental differences in their situation. Soldiers can do nothing but obey their
task assigned. They are under strict rules with lots of limitation. When they do their
mission on the front line, they have no choice but to be 100 percent invested in their
task at hand or lose their lives. On the other hand, teachers, under the current
system, teachers get paid regardless if they complete or fail their mission, which is
to educate the students. When teachers fail their mission they are not only not
punished, but they are rewarded the exactly the same as they would have provided
every student with an excellent education. Moreover, teachers can choose their
workplace or working environment for future promotion and extra pay while

soldiers have to stick to what they are offered. Therefore, teachers salaries,
responsibility and incentive can not be compared to those of soldiers. It actually
misleads the readers about fairness between different occupations. In the second
article, Brown (2012) also makes the same mistake when compare teachers to water.
He employs the diamond water paradox (par 6-10) as the basis of reasoning for
all of his arguements. He claims that like water, good teachers add enormous value to
society (par 11) but teacher should not be paid higher as they are more important like
paying diamond-like prices for water (par 16). This comparison is a false analogy due to
the distiction between teachers and water in nature. Water is available in nature with
enormous amount and free for humankind. On the contrary, teachers have to undergo a
long period of training with great effort and even pay the free on their own before starting
the job. The number of teachers, especially good ones is much more limited than water.
Thus, his argument is weaken and unconvincing. Both two authors utilize comparisons in
their reasoning, which do have effects on reader to certain extent but they should be more
accurate and persuasive.
Secondly, regarding the viewpoint, Browns arguements (2012) are more objective
and persuasive than Eggerss.