[主题活动] 【8月北美】8月作文互改组- 征人贴 [复制链接]

章小杰
UID: 2830569

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 89
注册时间: 2010-6-9
精华: 0
帖子: 0

发表于 2010-7-30 22:44:26 |显示全部楼层

本帖最后由章小杰于 2010-7-30 23:26 编辑

AW目标： ISSUE-4; ARGUMENT- 5.5+

招募对象：可以用英语不太费劲成文，有一定的英语思考能力。重视AW。希望通过对GRE AW的准备，真正提高自己的英语思维能力和写作水平。

招募人数： 4-5.

本人情况：计划8月底，9月初北美杀G。 VERBAL复习接近尾声，8月专攻AW。
            有较强的逻辑分析能力。可以用英语不太费劲成文，有较强的英语思考能力。但是语言功底很一般。

初步计划：一周安排6天的工作量. 周一到周五全心复习。双休日两天完成一个工作日的工作。
            8月以4周计算。
            保A，争I。 A以6为目标， I以4为目标。

   第1周: 专攻A。
            DAY1-6
            242个题。每天40个提纲。
            2篇A。互改。
            研读北美范文，收集好词，好句型。分享。
            每天针对1-2类错误训练写作思路（模板？）。针对某1-2个错误类型写3个段落。互改

第2周：开始I。
            DAY1- get an idea
            写1篇ISSUE。
            背一篇优秀习作。
            对照优秀习作分析5 issue topic。、
            2A。互改。

            DAY2-6
            每天背1篇优秀习作，语言和例子积累。
            对照北美范文，中译英1篇。
            分析 5个 issue topic。
            限时A。互改。

第3周：专攻I。
         DAY1-6
         每天20 I提纲。分享，互改。
         不限时I 1篇。互改。
         继续背范文、例子。提高语言质量。

第4周： A&I并重。
         DAY1-3
         不限时 I 1篇。互改。
         限时 I 1篇。互改。
         REFINE I 提纲。
         DAY4-6
         限时 I&A 各1篇。互改。
         REFINE I 提纲。

具体计划，待组员讨论。

可能我的目标定的太高了，超出我的能力范围。但是我会用最大的努力去争取最好的结果。大家一起加油！

发一篇习作，让大家了解一下我的LEVEL

这个是第2篇不限时A。用时1小时。无参考书。

Argument 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."

The author of this article unreasonably assume a causal relationship between the fact that the number of law school graduates who seeks employment in large, corporate firms declined by 15 percent over the last three year with job preferences obtained from a recent problematic survey among first-year law school students, and, therefore, unreasonably suggest that large, corporate firms should offer graduates more benefits and incentives and reduce the number of hours they must work in order to attract potential employees.

The cited survey in this argument is problematic in the sense that it only covers first-year students at one particular leading law school, which do not represent the entire population. It is entirely possible that students of this particular school bear more sense of social responsibility and lean more towards job satisfaction when seeking for a job than the average law school students. It is also likely that students in this leading law school get more financial aids, such as fellowships and scholarships, from government and alumni, which leave them less financial pressure after gradation than students from other law schools, therefore, leave them more freedom to choose a position with lower salary and less benefits, but more job satisfaction.

Also, first-year students in leading law school’s preferences have little indication of the job preference of law school graduates. Many years have to be passed before the survey attendees become job candidates. Their job preference can be greatly altered due to their experiences during these school years or economic conditions at that time. The author of this article needs careful consideration about this fact before drawing any conclusion based on this survey.

Moreover, the assumption that the 15 percent declining in the number of law school graduates in large corporate firms is caused by students’ preference towards greater job satisfaction offered by small companies is highly suspicious. First, no evidence is provided showing that small companies offer greater job satisfaction than large firms. It is more likely that small firms face more competition pressure in order to survive, which is also transferred to their employees. Serving at small firms may end up to be lower salary, less benefits, higher pressure and not necessary greater job satisfaction. The decrease in the number of law school graduates in Megaloplis seeking position in large firm may simply due to the migration of large firms out of the town in the past three years, while most law students prefer to work in Megaloplis.

Finally, the conclusion of this article does not follow as no creditable evidences are provided bolstering that offering more benefits and reducing working hours could alter graduates’ choices of employment towards large, corporate firms. Benefits and working hours may be completely irrelevant to graduates’ choice if new law school graduates are not attracted by monetary rewards.

Overall, this argument is unpersuasive as it stands. A creditable study of the cause of decreasing number of law school graduates seeking for position in large firms concerning the position availability in large firms in Megalopolis, new law school graduates vocational preference, economic conditions and so on is needed before any conclusion is drawn.

谢谢指教。