argument3【0806G-Sunbird小组】第六次作业

demonXhunterUID: 2420492

ARGUMENT3 - 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."

The arguer claims that, large, corporate firms of Megalopolis need to offer graduates more benefits and incentives and reduce the number of hours they must work. To bolster this, the arguer cited a survey between first-year students at a leading law school, also the arguer cited a fact that graduates in law schools in Megalopolis seem to have a tendency that they prefer small, general practice firms to large, corporate firms. I find this argument flawed in some respects.

First, the survey the arguer cites makes no difference because of two reasons. Firstly, the individual or institution who conducted this survey made a bad choice to choose first-year students as the respondents, who have little experience in finding a job. In my experience, few students may experience the employment pressure in their first year and thus do not know the differences between large corporate firms and small general practice films. Secondly, the survey’s respondents were chosen from a leading law school. Whereas, it is unfair for the arguer to choose this unrepresentative survey to support his universal conclusion that have neither subject limitation nor school limitation. It is entirely possible that leading school graduates have a different tendency from general school graduates. Or perhaps graduates whose majors are law are care more about job satisfaction. In sum, because the survey lacks representativeness, the arguer’s conclusion fails to make me convinced.

Second, the arguer fails to make me believe that, the fact cited at the beginning of the article essentially indicate graduates’ preference between large and small firms although s/he provides a seemingly sound data “15%”. It is possible that the total of law school graduates in Megalopolis declines by 16% (for example) in the last three years, and thus students who enter large firms declined and graduates who apply and enter small firms increased. My assumption is at least one of the explanations of the arguer’s fact, whereas in my assumption the variation of employment trend has not been revealed. According to the assumption showed above, the fact that the arguer describes is inefficient to indicate the employment trend and its variation and thus inefficient to support the conclusion.

Thirdly, the arguer’s final conclusion of the article gives an advice that large corporate firms should offer more benefits and incentives and reduce their working hours. However, considering large corporations’ profits and efficiency, the above suggestion is lack of feasibility and is not the necessary solution. In the one hand, if the number of working hours reduced, the corporation will become more inefficient than before, and the direct profit will also be declined by corporation’s offering benefits and incentives. Without any explanation about this, I simply can not be convinced. On the other hand, it is possible that most large firms absorb too many graduates that they have to stop receiving new graduates. In this situation, the arguer’s advice is useless.

In conclusion, because the survey and the fact cited by the arguer are both problematic, the arguer’s conclusion is groundless. To strengthen this argument, the arguer should provide more details such as the proportion of graduates who enter large firms, to complete the cited fact. Also the arguer should conduct or cite another survey to support the variation of employment trends. Finally, the argument needs a more insightful suggestion.

demonXhunterUID: 2420492

已经被alicia0530修改过了

alicia0530UID: 2152226

呵呵。。。这个都可以呢。。呃。。anyway。。谢谢了。。哈。。有时间再帮俺看上一两篇提提建议哈。。谢咯。。。:)

norman518UID: 188582

The arguer claims that, large, corporate firms of Megalopolis need to offer graduates more benefits and incentives and reduce the number of hours they must work. To bolster this, the arguer cited a survey between first-year students at a leading law school, also the arguer cited a fact that graduates in law schools in Megalopolis seem to have a tendency that they prefer small, general practice firms to large, corporate firms. I find this argument flawed in some respects.
【Begin：题目提到的内容你都进行了自己的改写，但怎样言简意赅？---我还没摸索出门道，你呢？BTW，原文中有个关键的前提你未提到“应届毕业生选择小公司是基于：他们更看重职业满足感而非高工资（而小小公司貌似能给他们提供这种职业满足感，但作者提供的论据survey and a fact并不能为其提供支撑）”】

First, the survey the arguer cites makes no difference because of two reasons【单从你的TP看：过于抽象，不利于你思路的展开哈】. Firstly, the individual or institution who conducted this survey made a bad choice to choose first-year students as the respondents, who have little experience in finding a job. In my experience, few students may experience the employment pressure in their first year and thus do not know the differences between large corporate firms and small general practice films. Secondly, the survey’s respondents were chosen from a leading law school. Whereas, it is unfair for the arguer to choose this unrepresentative survey to support his universal conclusion that have neither subject limitation nor school limitation. It is entirely possible that leading school graduates have a different tendency from general school graduates. Or perhaps graduates whose majors are law are care more about job satisfaction【反例如果再具体化点会有更强的攻击力】. In sum, because the survey lacks representativeness, the arguer’s conclusion fails to make me convinced.
【Body1：从survey的取样不具备代表性进行攻击，但TP欠妥】

Second, the arguer fails to make me believe that, the fact cited at the beginning of the article essentially indicate graduates’ preference between large and small firms although s/he provides a seemingly sound data “15%”. It is possible that the total of law school graduates in Megalopolis declines by 16% (for example) in the last three years, and thus students who enter large firms declined and graduates who apply and enter small firms increased. My assumption is at least one of the explanations of the arguer’s fact, whereas in my assumption the variation of employment trend has not been revealed. According to the assumption showed above, the fact that the arguer describes is inefficient to indicate the employment trend and its variation and thus inefficient to support the conclusion.
【Body2：没想到你会从数字对现状进行攻击，不错的想法，但不明白你的My assumption作用】

Thirdly, the arguer’s final conclusion of the article gives an advice that large corporate firms should offer more benefits and incentives and reduce their working hours. However, considering large corporations’ profits and efficiency, the above suggestion is lack of feasibility and is not the necessary solution. In the one hand【on the one hand】, if the number of working hours reduced, the corporation will become more inefficient than before, and the direct profit will also be declined by corporation’s offering benefits and incentives. Without any explanation about this, I simply cannot be convinced. On the other hand, it is possible that most large firms absorb too many graduates that they have to stop receiving new graduates. In this situation, the arguer’s advice is useless.
【Body3：攻击作者的结论（建议），但你刀走边锋，没有发现作者的前提与结论是自相矛盾“作者对高工资不感兴趣的毕业生，竟然提出用高福利而非工作成就感等精神激励因素进行引诱的方法”的大错误。】

In conclusion, because the survey and the fact cited by the arguer are both problematic, the arguer’s conclusion is groundless. To strengthen this argument, the arguer should provide more details such as the proportion of graduates who enter large firms, to complete the cited fact. Also the arguer should conduct or cite another survey to support the variation of employment trends. Finally, the argument needs a more insightful suggestion.
【End：应该没有问题！】

请回拍：https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=772354&page=1&extra=page%3D1#pid1771154938

[ 本帖最后由 norman518 于 2007-12-2 18:03 编辑 ]