3.The following appeared in a newspaper article about law firms in the
city of Megalopolis.
"In Megalopolis, the number of law school graduates who went to work for
large, corporate firms declined by 15 percent over the last three years,
whereas an increasing number of graduates took jobs at small, general
practice firms. Even though large firms usually offer much higher
salaries, law school graduates are choosing to work for the smaller firms
most likely because they experience greater job satisfaction at smaller
firms. In a survey of first-year students at a leading law school, most
agreed with the statement that earning a high salary was less important to
them than job satisfaction. This finding suggests that the large,
corporate firms of Megalopolis will need to offer graduates more benefits
and incentives and reduce the number of hours they must work."
In this argument, the arguer concludes that large corporate firms of megaololis should offer graduates more benefits and incentives and reduce the number of hours they must work. To justify the conclusion, the arguer points out that the number of law school graduates who went to large corporate firms reduced over the last three years,The arguer also use the result of a survey of first-year students from a lending law school to indicate that the law school graduates need more job satisfaction than a high salary. However, I find this argument logically unconvincing in several aspects.
First of all,the arguer failed to convince us that lack of satisfaction result in the 15%percent decline in the number of law school graduates who went to large corporate firms after graduate.It is entirely possible that many students didn't pass the interview of large corporate firms,or,the large corporate firms decided not to receive too many new workers in order to improve the efficiency. Given that lack of satisfaction result in the decline in the number of law school graduates who went to large corporate firms,the arguer fails to provide any evidence that graduates of law school need more satisfaction,the first-year students of a lending law school can not represent the law school graduates.So,the result of the survey of the first-year students at a lending law school can not prove law school graduates need more satisfaction.
In addition, there is no evidence necessarily support that large corporate firms should offer graduates more benefits and incentives and reduce the number of hours they must work. The competition in large corporation is more drastic than that in small corporation, surely, workers will experience less job satisfaction,it is a objective fact.
To sum up, this argument is logically flawed therefore unconvincing as it stands,to strengthen the conclusion, the grguer should provide more evidence to support that lack of satisfaction result in the 15%percent decline in the number of law school graduates who went to large corporate firms.Additionally, used a more convincing survey's result to support that law school students need more satisfaction than a high salary.
In this argument, the arguer concludes that large corporate firms of megaololis should offer graduates more benefits and incentives and reduce the number of hours they must work. To justify the conclusion, the arguer points out that the number of law school graduates who went to large corporate firms reduced over the last three years,The arguer also use(use) the result of a survey of first-year students from a lending law school to indicate that the law school graduates need more job satisfaction than a high salary. However, I find this argument logically unconvincing in several aspects.
First of all,the arguer failed(fails) to convince us that lack of satisfaction result in the 15%percent decline in the number of law school graduates who went to large corporate firms after graduate.It is entirely possible that many students didn't pass the interview of large corporate firms,or,the large corporate firms decided not to receive too many new workers in order to improve the efficiency. Given that lack of satisfaction result in the decline in the number of law school graduates who went to large corporate firms,the arguer fails to provide any evidence that graduates of law school need more satisfaction,the first-year students of a lending law school can not represent the law school graduates.So,the result of the survey of the first-year students at a lending law school can not prove law school graduates need more satisfaction.
In addition, there is no evidence necessarily support that large corporate firms should offer graduates more benefits and incentives and reduce the number of hours they must work. The competition in large corporation is more drastic than that in small corporation, surely, workers will experience less job satisfaction,it is a objective fact.
To sum up, this argument is logically flawed therefore unconvincing as it stands,to strengthen the conclusion, the grguer should provide more evidence to support that lack of satisfaction results in the 15%percent decline in the number of law school graduates who went to large corporate firms.Additionally, used a more convincing survey's result to support that law school students need more satisfaction than a high salary. 感觉语法上有一些小错误,就是我们作为论述的一般用现在时,而如果引用到文章作者的东西的话,就用它原来的时态 ..... fighting!!!!!