Argument3【0806G-Sunbird小组】第六次作业

alicia0530UID: 2152226

继续不敢限时。。。没治了。。用的时间越来越长。。。*_*...大家来拍吧。。实在是憋不出来了。。。先谢谢各位了

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 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.'

Date: Nov. 26, 2007       Time: 78min      Words: 627


Should the suggestions given by the newspaper article for law firms in the city of Megalopolis, that more benefits and incentives even working hours' reduction should be considered, necessarily be carried into execution?  The author of the article has presented several apparently reasonable viewpoints which I hardly agree with.

As a prerequisite, the author states that the percentage of law school graduates enrolled in big companies over the last three years has declined by 15 percent; by contrast, there was a trend at the same time that an increasing number of graduates chose to work in small firms.  Though the exact changing percentage was given, it forgot to consider the absolute number of graduates hired by both the big and small companies in comparison.  Admittedly, the big law firms were suffering a decline of graduates hiring; however, the truth could be, to some extent, that the overall number that new graduates employed of big firms were still more than that of the small companies.  Even this decline was accepted, the cause of this declined trend could be contributed to the higher standard of recruiting new staff in large law firms. Probably those large firms preferred to those applications with more working experiences, which is not available to the students lately graduated. In other circumstances, the judgment of a qualified staff defined by the big firms has recently adopted a more rigorous criterion, which as a result, lead to the decline of the graduates' hiring.

Then the author's opinion switched to the preferences of the graduates when choosing for a job vacancy between the big firms and the small ones.  With the assumptions, the author announced that law school graduates prefer greater job satisfactions n a small firm to a higher salaries in large companies. Taken these conclusions into further consideration, the decision of graduate to choose a certain job is more related to a compound element, like the payment, the self-fulfillment, the working environment and self-improved potentials, etc.  Each graduate should have his own judgment of which companies to choose to work with.  Consequently, to extract this single element as the crucial one that influences the job choosing opinions is somewhat dogmatically and unilaterally.

In order to demonstrate the former statement, the author presented a survey that indicated the job preferences of first-year students in a leading law school, which to the most students would rather join a firm that could provide them with a satisfactory work than a high paying one.  This time, the author has neglected the point that choosing first-year law students as the sample of the survey would do no use to the explanation to the trend that the graduates were experiencing.  Since the freshmen would value more to the chances of self-realizing, whereas the payment would be weighted much more unimportant, when comparing with the graduates. Moreover, the author has also mentioned that the survey was taken with a leading law school, as it is known to all that the graduates from first class schools would seldom find difficult to get involved in a satisfied job.  Thus, using this sample to persuade the readers to accept this viewpoint is more or less unpractical.

With a retrospect of all the flaws pointed out above, the author should pay more attention to collect the common samples which are more devoted to the average circumstances. And also to the judgments of a job selection, the author should list out all of the aspects that one would encounter when choosing for a new job; since to the youngsters, a job with more challenging opportunities and innovations could be more attractive than those stable vacancies. In conclusion, only a comprehensive analysis should the author taken, will this argument be more persuasive and convincing.

liouvilleUID: 2412940

Should the suggestions given by the newspaper article forlarge and corporatelaw firms in the city of Megalopolis, that more benefits and incentives even working hours' reduction should be considered,  and necessarily be carried into execution(I do not like this expression manner, maybe “executed” or “carried out” seems better)?  The author of the article has presented several apparently reasonable viewpoints(supporting evidences) which I hardly agree with.As a prerequisite(I think it is a statistic figure but prerequisite),the author states that the percentage of law school graduates enrolled(enrolling) in big companies over the last three years has declined by 15 percent; by contrast, there was a trend at the same time that an increasing number of graduates chose to work in small firms. Though the exact changing percentage was given (this sentence means nothing here or you can use other sentence to express the decrease of the percentage), it forgot to consider the absolute number of graduates hired by both the big and small companies in comparison.  Admittedly, the big law firms were suffering a decline of the number of graduates hiring (hired); however, the truth could be, to some extent, that the overall number that (of) new graduates employed of (by) big firms were (was) still more than that of the small companies. Even this decline was accepted, the cause of this declined trend could be contributed (attributed) to the higher standard of recruiting new staff in large law firms (good point). Probably those large firms preferred to those applications (applicants) with more working experiences, which is not available to the students lately graduated. In other circumstances, the judgment standard of a qualified staff defined by the big firms may have recently adopted a more rigorous criterion, which as a result, leads to the decline of the graduates' hiring (this seems similar with anterior one, claiming that big company has heighten the requirement of employees, so you should not use “in other circumstance”).Then the author's opinion (In argument, there is just one opinion that is the conclusion, the remains are the evidences to support the conclusion, here you can say “focus”) switched to the preferences of the graduates when choosing for a job vacancy between the big firms and the small ones.  With the assumptions, the author announced that law school graduates preferred greater job satisfactions in a small firm to a higher salaries in large companies. Taken(Taking) these conclusions into further consideration, the decision of graduates to choose a certain job is more related to a compound elements, like the payment, the self-fulfillment, the working environment and self-improved potentials, etc.  Each graduate should have his own judgment of which companies to choose to work with.  Consequently, to extract this single element (seems that the author has cited several factors like benefits, incentives and reduction of working hours, which should not be expressed as one single element) as the crucial one that influences the job choosing opinions is somewhat dogmatically and unilaterally.In order to demonstrate the former statement, the author presented a survey that indicated the job preferences of first-year students in a leading law school, which to the showed that most students would rather join a firm that could provide them with a satisfactory work than a high paying one.  This time, the author has neglected the point that choosing first-year law students as the sample of the survey would do no use (this expression is strange, you can use some fixed phrase) to the explanation to the trend that the graduates were experiencing (of the decline number of graduates going to big company).  Since the freshmen would value more to the chances of self-realizing, whereas the payment would be weighted much more unimportant(this is not comfortable, you can try to use other expression), when comparing with the graduates. Moreover, the author has also mentioned that the survey was taken with a leading law school, as it is known to all that the graduates from first class schools would seldom find difficulty to get involved in a satisfied job.  Thus, using this sample to persuade the readers to accept this viewpoint is more or less unpractical.With a retrospect of all the flaws pointed out above, the author should pay more attention to collect the common samples which are more devoted to the average circumstances. And also to the judgments of a job selection, the author should list out all of the aspects that one would encounter when choosing for a new job; since to the youngsters, a job with more challenging opportunities and innovations could be more attractive than those stable vacancies. In conclusion, only a comprehensive analysis should the author taken, will this argument be more persuasive and convincing.

每个逻辑的论证分析还是不错的，只是语言的表达上不是很规范，文章的条理上还有欠缺.

[ 本帖最后由 liouville 于 2007-12-1 18:56 编辑 ]

liouvilleUID: 2412940

本来修改的时候有很多彩色标记的，怎么都看不到了，唉。这个修改后看起来太累了。

alicia0530UID: 2152226

太感谢了。。。really appreciated....