第1篇Argument3,请大家多多指教,必回拍

deserteagleUID: 201968

Argument3  第1篇 让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！
b1:指出片面得出graduates 选择小公司
b2:指出survey面向的对象只是freshmen
b3:分析job satisfaction对选择工作的影响
请大家多多拍砖, 必回拍
------摘要------
20:45-22:05    445 words
------题目------
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.'
------正文------
In this argument, the arguer recommends that the large, corporate firms of Megalopolis should offer graduates more benefits and incentives and reduce the number of hours they must work.
To substantiate his recommendation, the arguer cites the survey taken by first-year students that job satisfaction is more important than a high salary, and he also assumes that law school students tend to work for small firms rather than large firms for job satisfaction. While this argument seems somewhat specific and plausible at first glance, close inspection would reveal it fraught with vague, oversimplified and unwarranted claims in several aspects.

First of all, the author fails to convince us that law school graduates tend to work for the smaller firms. The arguer fails to rule out the possibility that the number of positions which large and corporate firms could provide has decreased maybe for the depression of the economy. And the basic number of law school graduates who went to work for large and corporate firms is much bigger than the basic number of those who work for small and general practice firms. It is presumptuous to conclude that law school graduates are choosing to work for the smaller works.
Any further linkage of these two phenomena requires more evidence and is not justified by the data so far available.

Moreover, from the survey quoted in the argument, the author fails to conclude that earning a high salary was less important to them than job satisfaction. Because the survey was just involved fist-year students, we do not have any evidence suggesting that graduates’ conception is the same as freshmen’. It is possible that most first-year students will change their minds because they are too premature to choose to work for large and corporate firms or smaller firms.

Last but not least, it is presumptuous for the arguer to conclude 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. Primarily, there is no evidence indicates that graduates are dissatisfactory with these aspects. Secondly, job satisfaction includes not only these aspects, but also, sometimes even more crucial, is developable opportunity, working environment, interpersonal relationship, and communication with employer or manager.

To sum up, the argument is neither logically sound nor persuasive. To better bolster and strengthen the argument, the arguer needs to guarantee us that the number of work hours they is the only reason contribute to the fact that law school graduates tend to choose small firms rather than large and corporate firms. Only with more convincing evidence could this argument become more than just an emotional appeal.

cubbyhouseUID: 185662

觉得你写得好好啊
最后一段好像有点问题，不是很合文章的样子

deserteagleUID: 201968

谢谢楼上的建议
能说得具体一点么

yizhourenUID: 191108

感觉不错,抓住了问题的所在了.语言也挺流畅.但感觉第2,3段单薄了些,进一步论证.
close inspection would reveal (that) it (is)fraught with vague, oversimplified(?不知合适吗?) and unwarranted claims in several aspects.
To sum up, the argument is neither logically sound nor persuasive. To better bolster and strengthen the argument, the arguer needs to guarantee us that the number of work hours they(?) is the only reason contribute(s) to the fact that law school graduates tend to choose small firms rather than large and corporate firms. Only with more convincing evidence could this argument become more than just an emotional appeal.

cubbyhouseUID: 185662

最后一段中的那个工作时间什么的好像是对驳论部分最后一段的总结，而不是全文的总结。我觉得你可以不说那么详细，笼统一点。
一点建议拉^^

deserteagleUID: 201968

cubbyhouse,你的建议不错:)
还要谢谢yizhouren
希望你们留下链接, 我也帮你们看看.

cubbyhouseUID: 185662

帮忙看看我的吧，我觉得差到不行呀
一点信心也没有了55555555http://bbs.gter.edu.cn/bbs/showthread.php?s=&threadid=260102