climate-第一次作业

dairuxin512UID: 2178329

The following appeared in a letter sent by a committee of homeowners  from the Deerhaven Acres to all homeowners in Deerhaven Acres.  

"Seven years ago, homeowners in nearby Brookville community adopted a set of restrictions on how the community's yards should be landscaped and what  colors the exteriors of homes should be painted. Since then, average  property values have tripled in Brookville. In order to raise property  values in Deerhaven Acres, we should adopt our own set of restrictions on  landscaping and housepainting."  
字数：548   用时：1小时左右吧

七年前，附近的Brookville社区的业主实施了一系列关于该社区的庭院应如何布置以及房屋应涂何种颜色的规定。从那以后，Brookville的地产平均价格翻了三番。为使Deerhaven  
Acres的地产升值，我们也应该对于景观和房屋涂色实施自己的规定。  

In this argument, the author suggests that homeowners in Deerhaven Acres should adopt set of restrictions on landscaping and house painting in order to raise property values in Deerhaven. The reason for the proposal he or she gives out is the example of nearby Brookville community which adopted similar methods and brought triple-value-increasing seven years ago. However, after close examination of this suggestion, I find several logical flaws that decrease its reliability.

Firstly, the arguer arbitrarily considers that there is causality between the increasing of property values in Brookville and the measures of landscaping and painting Brookville community adopted. The reason he or she states is that the one happened after the other. No sufficient evidence is cited to prove these two things actually have such relationship the author reckons. One possible explanation for increasing of property values in Brookville is boost of local commerce. Or that some convenient infrastructures have been built attracted more investors or migrants. Perhaps leaders of Brookville made a great effort to improve the public order of the community, and many people hope to buy their house in a safer community, like Brookville. In addition, the author failed to consider that residents in Brookville adopted those restrictions and decorations just for wishing to live in a better environment, not for any business purpose. Therefore, the author might make a mistake on the correlations between measures Brookville adopted and raise of its property values.

Another severe fallacy is the proposal the author states. In the proposal, the author suggests Deerhaven Acres should do something like Brookville did to raise property values. On the one hand, even I assume that the measures Brookville adopted caused the increase of property value, but it just happened seven years ago. Is the condition the same as seven years ago? If it not, Deerhaven may have no harvest from adopting similar measures. On the other hand, other circumstances and environment in Deerhaven may be different from Brookville. It is possible that various infrastructures in Deerhaven, like hospital, public transportation, school etc. are not built very well. Or the percentage of criminal in Deerhaven is higher than nearby community. All of these would become weaknesses that defer markup of property values even Deerhaven devotes to decorate the surface of community houses.

In addition, the argue neglects considering other possible alternatives to improve the price of Deerhaven. Such alternatives may include building some commercial districts to stimulate local economy, or improve public order or perfect infrastructures to make residents enjoy a more comfortable and safer living environment. Perhaps leaders of Deerhaven should appeal to some mass media to advertise Deerhaven and enhance it influence. It appears reasonable, therefore, for the author to focus on these alternative methods than setting restrictions on landscaping and housepainting.

In conclusion, the proposal and analogy the author provides are not reliable and I cannot convince it. In order to make it more believable, sufficient evidences should be put out to prove that series measures Brookville adopted really resulted in the increase of local property values. Furthermore, the author should analyze and consider thoroughly whether the current conditions of Deerhaven adapt to using similar programs that Brookvill used seven years ago, or whether other better plans could attain the goal of increasing local property values as well.

[ 本帖最后由 dairuxin512 于 2007-11-10 20:31 编辑 ]

dairuxin512UID: 2178329

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."  
字数：630  用时：约1小时

在Megalopolis，过去三年间在大型合伙事务所就职的法学院毕业生数量下降了15％，而在小型，一般性事务所就职的毕业生数量则在增加。尽管大型事务所通常提供高的多的薪水，法学院毕业生选择在小型事务所工作主要是因为他们感受到更高的工作满足感。一项对于顶尖法学院一年级学生的调查显示，多数人同意挣更多的钱没有工作满足感更重要的说法。这一现象启示我们，Megalopolis的大型合伙事务所应该给毕业生提供更多的福利和激励，并减少他们的工作时间。

提纲：
1、  在大型事务所就职的人减少的原因：并不是就业人员不想进入大型事务所，很可能是因为大型事务所的人员需求有所减少，或者是要求有所增加，很多人没有机会或缺少能力而不能进入大型事务所。 另外，作者说的关于下降了15％的这个数字，也比较模糊，是和什么比较呢？或许15％并不是一个很大的数，因为也许进入大型事务所的人数本来就很有限。一般形事务所的就职人数增加，增加的幅度呢？可能是因为有很多新开了小型事务所，需要招聘许多人，或是这段时间小事务所的工作突增，需要更多的职员等，而不仅仅是因为就业者对小公司的青睐。
2、  作者认为这种就职者选择倾向的转移是因为他们对于工作满足感的获得。在这里存在两个逻辑错误，一是作者给出的关于一顶尖法学院的调查显示多数人认为工作满足感更重要，调查并不具有一般性和可信性，一是它仅仅对一所顶尖法学院进行，二是许多被调查人可能故意隐瞒了自己对金钱的欲望使得调查文卷并不能很好地反映他们地真是想法；二是作者并没有给出例子来说明他们能在小公司获得更多的工作满足感而在大公司就不能获得相应地工作满足感，在我看来可能从大公司更可能获得这种所谓的满足感，当听到别人称赞自己的公司时，应该是件很快乐的事情；而且大公司有更大的可能接到重要的case，职员应该会从这些重要的工作中获得满足感。
3、  最后，作者给大型事务所提出了建议关于给毕业生提供更多的福利和激励，并减少他们的工作时间，以此来提高就业者的工作满足感。但是，并没有仍和证据证明这些建议的做法对提高工作满足感有帮助，工作满足感的产生有可能来源于职工从公司获得的尊重，而不仅仅是福利增多和工作时间的减少；或者是职员对工作的感兴趣程度，例如，如果一个职工认为自己的才能并没有发挥到恰当的地方，他自然而然不会有工作满足感，所以对职员担任工作的调整可能是增加工作满足感的另一个途径。


In this argument, the author points out a phenomenon that more graduates of law school prefer to work for smaller firms rather than to large firms, which offer higher salaries. The reason, the author reckons, is that graduates would experience greater job satisfaction at smaller firms. So the author suggests that large firms should offer more benefits and incentives and reduce the number of hours to win back those losing graduates. However, after a close examination of the argument, I find several logical flaws that decline its reliability.

At first, the author fails to consider some alternative reasons to explain why the number of graduates who enter into large companies decline. It is possible that need of large firms have decreased during these three years or a higher qualification is required, but not unwilling of graduates. Even perhaps many graduates hope to become a member of large firms, yet they do not have adequate opportunities or abilities. Furthermore, fifteen five percent is so ambiguous that I cannot certain how many graduates large firms have lost. Maybe 15% does not mean a large number since those large companies might need relative fewer graduates every year. And what increase condition in smaller firms is like? What is the breadth of the incensement? Why those smaller firms need more employees? The reason might be many new smaller firms have been built during this period, so they need more graduates to work for companies. Or those smaller firms accepted more cases that three years ago and more labors were employed. All these mentioned reasons would decline the possibility of the explanation the author gives out.

In addition, the author thinks that the transfer of graduates results from the level of job satisfaction. There exist two fallacies. One is about the reliability and generalization of the survey. Since the survey was conducted among first-year students at a leading law school, small scope and respondents limited its generalization. What about ideas of other school or other grades student? And those respondents may conceal their desire for entering large firms to earning more money, if it is true, the results of survey cannot reflect real thoughts of graduates. On the other hand, no sufficient evidence is provided that graduates would experience more job satisfaction in smaller firms than in large ones. In my opinion, graduates could feel more successful in large companies when they hear other people comment their companies. And to large companies, they are more likely to receive important cases, so their employee would gain more sense of accomplishment from those cases.

Finally, a proposal is proposed which claims large companies to offer graduates more benefits and incentives and reduce the number of hours in order to improve their job satisfaction. But no evidence is cited to prove all of the measures would do a help to improve job satisfaction. The satisfaction may be from respect graduates feel, but not only from incentives increasing of work hours decreasing. Or the satisfaction derives from whether employees have interests in their jobs. For example, if staffs considers they cannot fully exert abilities on jobs or have no interests in their positions, he or she cannot acquire satisfaction from work. Rearranging positions of duties for employee, therefore, might be a better way to improve job satisfaction of staffs.

In conclusion, the argument has so many fallacies as discussed above that I cannot convince the proposal it provides at last. The argument could be improved by providing evidence that the reason of more graduates choosing smaller firms rather than large firms actually have a correlation with job satisfaction. It could be further improved by proving graduates gaining less job satisfaction in large firms than in smaller ones and ruling out alternative measure for improving job satisfaction for large firms.