Argument 3 求狠拍和指点

464073UID: 2843270

Before making a decision that large, corporate firms should offer graduates more benefits and incentives and reduce the working hours, the evidence given by the argument should be carefully examined.
The author states that smaller firms would give them grater job satisfaction than bigger companies and shows the fact that the number of graduates choose big firms declined while more graduates choose work in smaller ones and survey of a law school to proof her or his statements. There are some logical problems of this argument.

In the first place, the mere fact that the graduates of big firms declined 15 percent in the past three years is not strong enough to support assumption that more students choose smaller firms. The author ignores many other kinds of reason which would lead this situation. Perhaps bigger firms offered less job opportunities to graduates or they need new employees have more work experience. Thus, fewer graduates can find jobs in big companies so they turn to the smaller ones. This is maybe the real reason of the fact mentioned at the beginning of the paragraph. Besides, the number of smaller companies has increased rapidly in the past few years so that they need more employees to work for the firms. This also be the true reason.

However, the most important factor is that the author fails to provide any evidence to prove the assumption that the graduates can have more job satisfaction in smaller companies than big ones. Lacking such evidence, it is totally possible that the reason of more graduates choose the smaller firms has no relationship with the job satisfaction. For instance, the reason can be that the graduates can feel less pressure or have more chance to be the manager in the smaller firms. Everybody knows that working in bigger firms must face great pressure and afford very hardly competition every day and every hour. Thus, maybe the students afraid of the pressure and competition and choose the smaller companies.

Furthermore, the survey given in the argument has some problems which lead it unbelievable to the conclusion. First of all, this survey only contains the first-year students of one leading law school, this sample is not big enough and cannot reflect all the view of all the law school students. Besides, it is very possible that the views of the first-year students would change a lot three years later when they graduate from the school. All this flaws leads the survey incredible.

Finally, even if the reason that the graduates choose the smaller companies is that they can receive more job satisfaction from there, the author’s conclusion that bigger firms should give more benefits of the graduates and reduce the number of working hours is still unwarrantly. This is the biggest problem of this argument. There is no evidence to show that more benefits and fewer working hours can increase the job satisfaction. In fact, the author mentions that the bigger companies already give higher salaries in the argument, but the number of graduates who choose the big companies still decreased. Thus, unless the author can offer the evidence of relationship between job satisfaction and higher benefit and less working hours, this suggestion can’t be considered. Besides, the author also ignores other methods to improve the job satisfaction, and the alternatives would be more effective, such as give the employees more challengeable tasks and people have more opportunities to be improved.

In conclusion, the author should consider more reasons which would lead the job satisfaction and use more logical survey, but she or he fails to do that.