处女作，望各位高手努力拍砖!

ytx1989UID: 2916892

3The 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 the article, the author recommends that despite the higher salaries the large, corporate firm of Megalopolis should offer the new law-graduates more benefits and incentives and reduce the working-time. To support this recommendation, the author points out that large, corporate firms are suffering a 15% decline in the number of graduates going to work for them. The author also cites a survey of first-year students at a leading school which seemingly indicates that earning a high salary was less important than job satisfaction. Close scrutiny of each of these facts, however, reveals that none of them lend credible support to the recommendation.

First of all, based on the mere fact that a 3-year 15% decline took place in large, corporate firms while smaller firms went through an rise the author arrives at an unfair speculation that smaller firms offered more satisfactory jobs than the former. In fact, lower job-taking is not necessarily due to the diminished preferences of new law-school graduates. It is entirely possible that large, corporate firms , confined to their enormous scale and large expenditure for managing their stuff, have had fewer and fewer job opening for these graduates during the last three years. Without accounting for the alternative explanations for the decline, the author cannot convince me on the basis of them that large, corporate firms offer less satisfactory jobs.

Second, as for the survey that has ever cited, the author takes the assumption that first-year students’ job preferences typify the new graduates’ ones for granted. It is a truth that is universally acknowledged that first-year students usually do not have a distinctive conception of job. They are idealistic who might not have calculated life cost and who make their choices intended for their interests. The author fails to consider possible differences between first-year students and newly graduates.

Finally, even if large, corporate firms failed to appeal for these graduates, the author falsely equates working-time reduction with job satisfaction. It is entirely possible that new graduates are willing to work for a proper extra time in order to refine their professional techniques. Or perhaps they prefer a higher hourly wage to working-time reduction. If so, it isn’t appropriate for these firms to reduce the number of hours their stuff must work.

In sum, the author of this article relies his recommendation on a series of unpersuasive assumptions which render it unconvincing as it stands. To convince me that smaller firms have the edge over large, corporate ones, the author should figure out the driving forces that have caused the decline other than the job satisfaction. To better assess this recommendation, the author also should provide evidence that new graduates prefer reduction of working-time to other monetary rewards.

ytx1989UID: 2916892

为啥没人提点意见涅？先占个座吧。。。ps可以回改呦！