[a习作temp] Argument3[AWER小组] [复制链接]

JasonDove
UID: 2322013

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 398
注册时间: 2007-3-31
精华: 0
帖子: 3

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2008-2-10 00:16:15 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

Argument 3

Merely based on the unfound assumption and dubious evidence the statement draws the conclusion that large law firms in M would have to provide more benefits and job satisfaction to graduates there in order to be more attractive and competitive. To substantiate this argument, the author points out that during last three years the number of graduates who would like to join the smaller law firms has enhanced. Further more, he indicates that the number of law school graduates who went to work for large firms has declined by 15 percent. In addition, he cites the result of a recent survey that most of the first-year students at a leading law school concedes that their job satisfaction would be more significant than the salaries. At first glance, this argument appears to be somewhat convincing. But further reflection reveals that it omits some crucial concerns that should be addressed in the statement. From my own perspective, this argument suffers from three logical flaws. Here follows my analysis.

First and foremost, the author's recommendation depends on the assumption that the increasement of the number of graduates who work for small firms and the decrease of the number of graduates take jobs at large firms attribute to salaries and job satisfaction. However, commen sense informs me that this assumption is a poor one. A myriad of other factors such as the external environment of the firms or the culture of the firms and so forth might as likely be the cause of the foregoing phenomenon. To be specific, perhaps large firms in M are all located at a high-tech zone that is far from downtown. Thus, there would be a long way for their workers to get to the firms. If so, the distance between the firms and workers' homes would be an effective factor for the decreasement of the number of graduates take job at large firms. Without ruling out the possible factors such as these the author cannot persude me that to give graduates more benefits would be efficient to appeal them to work at large firms.

Secondly, the author's recommendation depends falsely on another assumption that the number of graduates who are tend to work at large firms would still decreases in the foreseeing future. The author claims without any justification that the background conditions have remained the same at different time. However, this assumption is unwarranted because things rarely remain the same over extended period of time. There are likely kinds of differences between now and the future. For instance, it is possible that-in the foreseeing future-graduates tend to take the brands of firms into account, therefore the number of graduates who take jobs at large firms would increase. Any of these scenarios, if true would serve to undermine the claim that it would be good for the large firms to offer more benefits and shorten the working hours.

Finally, unless the author sampled a suffient number of graduates and did this randomly, across the entire M spectrum, the survey result is not reliable to gauge graduates' tendency in choosing jobs. Obviously, Only first-year studnets cannot represent all students in the law shcool mentioned in the survey. Moreover, One leading law school cannot represent all law schools at M. Thus, falsely depends on the irrepresentative survey, the author's recommendation that large firms at M should provide more salaries and welfare to their potential employee would attract them to join in.

To sum up, the author fails to substantiate his claim that large firms in M should provide more benefits and shorten the office hours to become more attractive and competitive, because the evidence in the statement does not lend strong support to what the author mainteins. To make this argument more convincing, the author should provide more information with regard to the reason why graduates prefer small firms these years. Additionally, he should also demonstrate that the survey's result is relaible. Therefore only included the factors discussed above, can this argument become more than just an emotional appeal.

USC EE MS