小弟的第一篇Argument希望大家能指教一下。。写了两天了 [复制链接]

kkloveyy627
UID: 2801804

新手上路

Rank: 1

声望: 0
寄托币: 75
注册时间: 2010-4-20
精华: 0
帖子: 1

发表于 2011-3-3 23:31:05 |显示全部楼层

本帖最后由 kkloveyy627 于 2011-3-3 23:33 编辑

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% 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 article draw a conclusion that law school graduates can acquire more satisfaction at smaller firms than large law firms what account for the number of student in large law firms cut down. To support this recommendation the article cites that first-year students at leading school say they pay more attention at job satisfaction but not at a high salary, and in order to add up the satisfaction of job only by means of providing more benefits and incentives and reduce the working time. Careful examination of this supporting evidence, I find this argument logically unconvincing in several respects.

  To begin with, the 15% decline might not represent employment preference of new law school graduates .perhaps the new graduates are willing to work at large law firms, whereas the large law firms not have a ability to supply more job opening than three years ago. The author of this article fails to make clear the 15% decline. The author make any recommendations to law firms merely base on the abstract data, I think it cannot persuade me.

  This article also assumes unfairly that the vocational goal of first-year students necessarily reflect those of graduating student .it is entirely possible that the first-year students can change their vocational goals, because everyone will confront different things and have disparate lifestyles after three years. Moreover, the goals of students at one leading school can’t be considered representative of overall students in Megalopolis. Perhaps most of students at this leading law school come from wealthy families, and they needn’t to consider how to make money to earn their life after graduated .Further, under the influence of other factors if or not the student say the true feelings. For instance, perhaps some students not actually express themselves in a state of tension when they are interviewed. If so, these facts would further undermine the enforceability of this survey.

Finally, the author falsely equates the proposed tangible incentives and decrease the working time with job satisfaction. The job satisfaction may not have a direct correlation with material wealth, which can’t attract the rookie. What’s more, reducing the working time means enhance the salary of per hour, which can’t improve the job satisfaction substantially, and let alone the author of this survey make a clear conclusion that how to increase the job satisfaction. So, until the author don’t find the evidence to substantiate this assumption I remain unconvinced that offer more benefits and reduce working time can boost job satisfaction.

In sum, the article is logically flawed and therefore unconvincing as it stands. To bolster the recommendation the author must figure out what things can raise the job satisfaction for law school graduates, and the author should reselect an investigation sample rather than only be limited to the first-year student.