[a习作temp] argue3第一次发习作，陈恳请求大家给意见。 [复制链接]

windflycc
UID: 2647799

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 4
寄托币: 198
注册时间: 2009-6-2
精华: 0
帖子: 11

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2009-8-25 22:59:23 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

本帖最后由 windflycc 于 2009-8-25 23:11 编辑

argument3

"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."

在Megalopolis，过去三年间在大型合伙事务所就职的法学院毕业生数量下降了15％，而在小型，一般性事务所就职的毕业生数量则在增加。尽管大型事务所通常提供高的多的薪水，法学院毕业生选择在小型事务所工作主要是因为他们感受到更高的工作满足感。一项对于顶尖法学院一年级学生的调查显示，多数人同意挣更多的钱没有工作满足感重要的说法。这一现象启示我们，Megalopolis的大型合伙事务所应该给毕业生提供更多的福利和激励，并减少他们的工作时间。

题目分析：依据一项调查，作者认定进入大型事务所的毕业生这三年来数量下降而小型事务所上升的原因就是因为两者相比，小型事务所提供更多的工作满足感。作者建议大型事务所给毕业生提供更多的福利和激励，并减少他们的工作时间，认为可以以此来提高他们的工作满足感。

1 无法说明大型事务所就职毕业生数量下降与法学毕业生倾向的关系，也许不是法学毕业生不愿意去大型事务所工作，而是大型事务所提供的职位少了。或许过去三年大型事务所的数量基本稳定，而小型事务所的数量则有显著增长，我们知道小型事务所比大型事务所更容易建立与发展。又或许大型事务所过去三年的人员数量已趋于饱和，而小型事务所，正是由于福利的不足，导致人员跳槽与更替的频繁，才需要吸纳更多的毕业生。
2 无法根据一项调查说明法学院毕业生更倾向于
调查是针对一年级的学生，在他们毕业之前，什么都可能发生。或许年轻人更容易追求一些精神上的东西，而随着他们成熟与在学习方面的不断进步，他们会更倾向于现实方面，并且更愿意接受挑战。而且，一所学院的学生无法代表可能会去,m事务所求职的所有学生的目标。
3 福利并不能带来工作满足感，减少工作时间也不能，事实上小型事务所能提供更多的工作机会，而大型事务所或许由于能人太多，无法给新人更多的上庭机会，这才导致满足感下降，而这些都是结论无关的。而且，增加福利相当于加薪，而减少工作时间相当于增加每小时工作的工资，这样一来，如果依据作者所言毕业生更倾向于满足感而非报酬的话，事务所的前景就不容乐观了。

Based on a survey, the author assume that it is the more job satisfy in small law firms as the reason behind the fact that more law school graduates entering small law corporate firms while less of them to the large ones these three years .The argument for the large corporate firm offering more welfare and incentives and reducing the number of work hours as the way to enhance the graduates job satisfy seems logical. However, careful scrutiny of the argument's line of reasoning reveals that it suffers from a series of flaws, which render it unconvincing as it stands.

The basic flaw in this passage is that the arguer fails to establish a causal relationship between the change of the numbers of the entered graduates in the large and small law firms with their preferences. Maybe it is not the new graduates’ increasing unwillingness to go to work for large corporate firms but the less job offer of the large corporate firm that lead that 15% decline, Perhaps that the small law firms have a high turnover of staff, thus new graduates are seriously needed. The large law firms may be the firms that maintain the constant employee-employer relationship with the majority of the staff just because their nice payment and welfare. It appears reasonable therefore, for the large firms to adjust their policy of employment to admit more new graduates than to indiscreetly and uselessly double the benefits. Are there more small law firms in there than before? If so there may be an increased number of new graduates needed and therefore accepted there. The large firm company may be facing the stability of numbers or even the decline as we all know that large firms are comparably difficult to develop than small one.

In the second place, even if it is true that the law school graduates prefer the small law firms other than large ones, the reason of their preference cannot be convincingly proved by the survey. Common sense tells us, the freshman of college care less about reality but the psychological feelings. As they become the graduates, gradually mature, they may change completely, Job satisfy perhaps no longer critical to them. Moreover, one school may be far from sufficient and can hardly represent the idea of the whole law school students in Megalopolis.

Finally, even if one accepts the survey results, the conclusion is still questionable. More benefits cannot necessarily equate to more job satisfy, nor can the reducing of work hours, as they distinguished in material or spirit realms. It is possible that the small law firms offer more promotion-chance for freshmen than large ones do that lead to the higher job satisfy. Then neither of the benefits the author suggests can compensate for that satisfies. In addition, it is mentioned that high salary is less important to the law school students. However, increasing the benefits means higher salaries, while decreasing the work hours means rising the wage. Therefore, follow author’s suggests may be even harmful.

In conclusion, the argument, while it seems logical at first, has several flaws as discussed above. The argument could be improved by providing evidence that the correlation is indeed a casual relationship—that law school students’ preference actually causes the change of the graduates’ numbers.
in to the law firms. It could be further improved by ruling out alternative reasons for their preference and improving his suggests.