Argument3 【0806G-Sunbird小组】Norman第6次作业

norman518UID: 188582

TOPIC: 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."
WORDS: 733          TIME: no limited            DATE: 2007-12-2

In this article, based on the premise that law school graduates prefer more job satisfaction to higher salaries, the author suggests that large law firms of Megalopolis should provide more benefits and incentives and fewer working hours to reverse the declination of law graduates engaging in large firms rather small law firms. To strengthen his suggestion, the author cites recent status quo of law graduates in Megalopolis and a survey of freshmen’s inclination at a leading law school. However, this suggestion is full of logical fallacies as it stands from its precondition and reasoning.

Firstly, the status quo that the 15 percent declination over the last three years of law graduates worked for large law firms is unpersuasive to illuminate law graduates preferring job satisfaction to higher salaries. After all, there are many other factors to influence law graduates’ vocational motivation, common senses tell us that large law firms have higher threshold to their employee, and their routines in large firms are more complicated than in small firms, despite of higher salaries. It is entirely possible that the application of large law firms still keep on increasing trends, whereas the number of qualified graduates has been shrinking over three years. And more, it is hard to imagine that law graduates experience less job satisfaction to deal with complicatedly challenging affairs in large firms than simply general routines in small ones. In balance, the declining numbers of law graduates working for large law firms cannot lead to the greater job satisfaction at small firms unless the author can rule out above alternatives.

What is more, the recent survey on freshmen at a top law school is unrepresentative of all graduates as a whole. On the one hand, whether in academic acknowledge or in the social experience, first-year students are immature novices than those seniors, they cannot fairly express or involve the vocational inclination of seniors; on the other hand, the survey sponsored in special field-- a heading law school does not embody the common attitudes of all law graduates. It is high possible that those ideal tyros are more inclined to utopian vocational views-- such as honorable ambition and aspiration, etc., rather than practically vocational choices of mature seniors burdened on employing pressures; or that graduates of a heading law school with the qualification of large firms’ standard are more bound up in personal pursuits and their value accomplishment, rather than common considerations of general law schools’ graduates-- such as subsistence, stability and security. In other words, compared with general graduates, freshmen of a leading law school put more emphasis on spirit pursuits far beyond worldly substance anxieties. Therefore, if the author cannot get rid of above possibilities, the cited survey is nothing at all but a special case.

Even if the survey is acceptable, the premise of law graduates preferring job satisfaction to high salaries is untenable. From the statistic views, a country-wide survey could not accurately reflect to true conditions of Megalopolis, let alone of a special survey. If the economic level of Megalopolis is unadvanced, it is likely possible that graduates emphasize on higher welfare rather than job satisfaction. If the author cannot provide details about employment market, the premise is still down-and-out.

Finally, even if the author's premise is tenable, the suggestion seems to contradict his or her premise. It is ineffectual measure for large law firms to offer more benefits and incentives in order to employ more graduates, who are more inclined to grater job satisfaction rather than higher salaries. According to author’s premise, maybe more effective ways of absorbing graduates include large firms providing graduates with a harmonious and impartial working-surroundings, or competitive and challenging chances, etc. And it is also impractical measure for large firms to offer fewer working-hours to reverse the decreasing numbers of graduates, maybe another practical ways is for large firms to promote inner management and employee’s efficiency though strategies of retraining and promotion. So, the suggestion is an ineffective measure unless author can provide more evidences to substantiate it.

In sum, the suggestion is not practical and effective from above discussion. To strengthen it, the author should provide more details on status quo and survey in Megalopolis-- rather than a general static number and a special law school-- to rule out all adverse factors. To better evaluate it, the author should modify his or her suggestion for the sake of rationality and practicality.

[ 本帖最后由 norman518 于 2007-12-2 17:07 编辑 ]

toumingsenlinUID: 2344846

In this article, based on the premise that law school graduates prefer more job satisfaction to higher salaries, the author suggests that large law firms of Megalopolis should provide more benefits and incentives and fewer working hours to reverse the declination of law graduates engaging in large firms rather small law firms. To strengthen his suggestion, the author cites recent status quo of law graduates in Megalopolis and a survey of freshmen’s inclination at a leading law school. However, this suggestion is full of logical fallacies as it stands from its precondition and reasoning.

Firstly, the status quo that the 15 percent declination over the last three years of law graduates worked for large law firms is unpersuasive to illuminate law graduates preferring job satisfaction to higher salaries. After all, there are many other factors to influence law graduates’ vocational motivation, common senses tell us that large law firms have higher threshold to their employee, and their routines in large firms are more complicated than in small firms, despite of higher salaries. It is entirely possible that the application of large law firms still keep on increasing trends, whereas the number of qualified graduates has been shrinking over three years. And more, it is hard to imagine that law graduates experience less job satisfaction to deal with complicatedly challenging affairs in large firms than simply general routines in small ones.(这个如果删掉会不会简洁些？) In balance, the declining numbers of law graduates working for large law firms cannot lead to the greater job satisfaction at small firms unless the author can rule out above alternatives.

What is more, the recent survey on freshmen at a top law school is unrepresentative of all graduates as a whole. On the one hand, whether in academic acknowledge or in the social experience, first-year students are immature novices than those seniors, they cannot fairly express or involve the vocational inclination of seniors; on the other hand, the survey sponsored in special field-- a heading law school does not embody the common attitudes of all law graduates. It is high possible that those ideal tyros are more inclined to utopian vocational views-- such as honorable ambition and aspiration, etc., rather than practically vocational choices of mature seniors burdened on employing pressures; or that graduates of a heading law school with the qualification of large firms’ standard are more bound up in personal pursuits and their value accomplishment, rather than common considerations of general law schools’ graduates-- such as subsistence, stability and security.（如果想简练，可以稍微少一些关于理由的陈述） In other words, compared with general graduates, freshmen of a leading law school put more emphasis on spirit pursuits far beyond worldly substance anxieties. Therefore, if the author cannot get rid of above possibilities, the cited survey is nothing at all but a special case.

Even if the survey is acceptable, the premise of law graduates preferring job satisfaction to high salaries is untenable. From the statistic views, a country-wide survey could not accurately reflect to true conditions of Megalopolis, let alone of a special survey. If the economic level of Megalopolis is unadvanced, it is likely possible that graduates emphasize on higher welfare rather than job satisfaction. If the author cannot provide details about employment market, the premise is still down-and-out.

Finally, even if the author's premise is tenable, the suggestion seems to contradict his or her premise. It is ineffectual measure for large law firms to offer more benefits and incentives in order to employ more graduates, who are more inclined to grater job satisfaction rather than higher salaries. According to author’s premise, maybe more effective ways of absorbing graduates include large firms providing graduates with a harmonious and impartial working-surroundings, or competitive and challenging chances, etc. And it is also impractical measure for large firms to offer fewer working-hours to reverse the decreasing numbers of graduates, maybe another practical ways is for large firms to promote inner management and employee’s efficiency through strategies of retraining and promotion. （理由同上）So, the suggestion is an ineffective measure unless author can provide more evidences to substantiate it.

In sum, the suggestion is not practical and effective from above discussion. To strengthen it, the author should provide more details on status quo and survey in Megalopolis-- rather than a general static number and a special law school-- to rule out all adverse factors. To better evaluate it, the author should modify his or her suggestion for the sake of rationality and practicality.

牛人呀！闪的我眼花缭乱的，不知该如何下笔修改了。
思路清晰，行文流畅，句式多样，典范呀！收藏了！
个人觉得如果想在30分钟写这么多可能任务相当艰巨，可以考虑将支持的理由从两个减为一个，这样会精练一些。
改的不好的不对的，请多多包涵，也可以再交换意见。

norman518UID: 188582

你的建议和修改我会认真考虑的！
但就“具体和深入”的尺度，我的确无法合理取舍！欢迎斑斑和达人给予中肯的建议！

lotus88UID: 2409069

我认为从TOPIC里作者选取的调查对象来源本身含有这样一个假设“都市里的大公司招聘对象主要锁定于名校的毕业生”。这一个假设在反驳作者观点的过程应该考虑进去。

norman518UID: 188582

原帖由 lotus88 于 2007-12-16 11:52 发表
我认为从TOPIC里作者选取的调查对象来源本身含有这样一个假设“都市里的大公司招聘对象主要锁定于名校的毕业生”。这一个假设在反驳作者观点的过程应该考虑进去。

你的问题是survey?题目中应该清楚表明“In a survey of first-year students at a leading law school”
难道你指的是“前面的现状”描述？那你提出的假设应该是不言而喻的！

关键是你想补偿题目的什么错误，可以具体谈谈？

         谢谢

lotus88UID: 2409069

可能我没表达清楚,我的意思是,驳的时候是不是应该把重点放在"调查对象应该选取已经工作的毕业生,他们在毕业的时候,有可以去大公司或是小公司的选择;他们工作后,对大公司和小公司的区别最有感受"这一群人最有发言权.而不是驳这一调查的代表性本身.
么,总的说来.你的写作能力已经大大超过我的阅读能力.我大概有吹毛求疵的嫌疑了.