Argument3 |0806G-AW小组|第1次作业

lovexxnuUID: 2376964

Argument 3:

"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 (577)

In this argument, the author suggested corporate firms of Megalopolies (M) to offer graduates more competitive benefits for attracting them. However, before proposing his recommendation, he need an all-around (all-sided) consideration about the condition, including graduates, corporate companies and local economics. Based on limited aspects mentioned in the argument, it can hardly be so convinced as he figured.

Firstly, there is no evidence to suggest that the decline is caused by graduates' choice rather than companies' demand. While finding the jobs, large companies usually stand at the superior position and have more critical requirements. They have the advantage to choose the best applicants, including ones who had worked for years but not limited graduates. And it is truly hard for graduates to keep in touch with the development of industry closely in college. Thus, the decline of the number of graduates who went to corporation firms might be the result of the requirements' enhancing or the deficiency of graduates' industry skills rather than their intent. If so, it is apparent that companies have no demand of more graduates. Consequently, they do not need to apply any new policies to attract more graduates. Moreover, the demands of new employers are related to economics closely. If most of the corporation companies in M were running with a poor market condition, it will also contribute to the decline. So the author should make sure that more graduates are demanded for corporate firms first.

Secondly, more evidence should be offered to demonstrate that the job satisfaction in small companies played a key role on the decline. In fact, it is more possible that corporate firms can provide the better job satisfaction due to their good economic conditions and maturity regulations, while small ones still have to endeavor for their survival. Even though employers working in some of them need to work hard for the tough competition, it does not mean a poor satisfaction, since it can provide the precious (valuable) experience, which can not be encountered in small companies. Further more, when people made a choice in jobs, salary is always one of the most significant factors to be considered. The survey of first-year students mentioned in the argument can not prove graduates focused less on salary. It is common sense that graduates are different with fresh dramatically. They have to face and consider more practical problems, such as house and daily expenses, most of which can not be solved without sufficient money. Thus, salary might be the dominant matter while graduates making the decision among jobs.

Finally, even though the aspects above are proven, enhancing the benefits and reducing working time are not the only ways to improve the situation and may be even ineffective. Each kind of companies has its own advantages and disadvantages at the same time. The best way to attract graduates is to apply its advantages well rather than overcoming rivals roundly. Enhancing graduates' benefits freely for corporate firms might cause others' dissatisfaction and impact companies' regulations, while reducing working time might lead to the decline of companies' profits. However, the corporate companies can offer employers better trainings and attractive projects for their future development. So they should adopt policies according to their won conditions rather than satisfying graduates' demand.

To sum up, if the author wants to convince the companies to accept his suggestion, he should supply a more detailed survey and analysis. Such little evidences in the argument can hardly support his recommendation well.

ZZCZ_BishopUID: 2403776

字太大了，看着头晕。
麻烦改小一点....

现在好了....

[ 本帖最后由 ZZCZ_Bishop 于 2007-12-30 16:43 编辑 ]

lovexxnuUID: 2376964

看了要自己改了，，，

guomin1437UID: 2411571

Argument 3:

"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 (577)

In this argument, the author suggested(应该是suggest,但suggest是那种单词,表示未发生的事情,没有to这种用法,即使ing也很少,that从句多) opolies corporate firms of Megal (M) to offer graduates more competitive benefits for attracting them. However, before proposing his recommendation, he needs an all-around (all-sided) consideration about the condition, including graduates, corporate companies and local economics. Based on limited aspects mentioned in the argument, it can hardly be(去掉so了) convinced as he figured.

Firstly, there is no evidence to suggest(suggesting) that the decline is caused by graduates' choice rather than companies' demand. While finding the jobs, large companies usually stand at the superior position and have more critical requirements(主语有问题). They have the advantage to choose the best applicants, including ones who had worked for years but not limited graduates. And it is truly hard for graduates to keep in touch with the development of industry closely in college. Thus, the decline of the number of graduates who went to corporation firms might be the result of the requirements' enhancing or the deficiency of graduates' industry skills rather than their intent. If so, it is apparent that companies have no demand of more graduates. Consequently, they do not need to apply any new policies to attract more graduates. Moreover, the demands of new employers are related to economics closely. If most of the corporation companies in M were running with a poor market condition, it will also contribute to the decline. So the author should make sure that more graduates are demanded for corporate firms first.

Secondly, more evidence should be offered to demonstrate that the job satisfaction in small companies played a key role on the decline. In fact, it is more possible that corporate firms can provide the better job satisfaction due to their good economic conditions and maturity regulations, while small ones still have to endeavor for their survival. Even though employers working in some of them need to work hard for the tough competition, it does not mean a poor satisfaction, since it can provide the (去the吗)precious (valuable) experience, which can not be encountered in small companies. Further more, when people made a choice in jobs, salary is always one of the most significant factors to be considered. The survey of first-year students mentioned in the argument can not prove graduates focused less on salary. It is common sense that graduates are different with fresh dramatically. They have to face and consider more practical problems, such as house and daily expenses, most of which can not be solved without sufficient money. Thus, salary might be the dominant matter while graduates making the decision among jobs.

Finally, even though the aspects above are proven, enhancing the benefits and reducing working time are not the only ways to improve the situation and may be even ineffective. Each kind of companies has its own advantages and disadvantages at the same time. The best way to attract graduates is to apply its advantages well rather than overcoming (to overcome更好一点,是不是,不同意pm我,共同探讨)rivals roundly. Enhancing graduates' benefits freely for corporate firms might cause others' dissatisfaction and impact companies' regulations, while reducing working time might lead to the decline of companies' profits. However, the corporate companies can offer employers better trainings and attractive projects for their future development. So they should adopt policies according to their won conditions rather than satisfying graduates' demand.

To sum up, if the author wants to convince the companies to accept his suggestion, he should supply a more detailed survey and analysis. Such little evidences in the argument can hardly support his recommendation well.
看到你的ISSUE很好,所以抱着学习的态度看了下你的argue,因为我几乎对A很不了解,所以就不评论结构了,不过下次肯定会痛批的

lovexxnuUID: 2376964

"In Megalopolis, the numberof law school graduates who went to work for large, corporate firmsdeclined by 15 percent over the last three years, whereas an increasingnumber of graduates took jobs at small, general practice firms. Eventhough large firms usually offer much higher salaries, law schoolgraduates are choosing to work for the smaller firms most likelybecause they experience greater job satisfaction at smaller firms. In asurvey of first-year students at a leading law school, most agreed withthe statement that earning a high salary was less important to themthan job satisfaction. This finding suggests that the large, corporatefirms of Megalopolis will need to offer graduates more benefits andincentives and reduce the number of hours they must work."

words (577)

In this argument,the author suggested corporate firms of Megalopolies (M) to offergraduates more competitive benefits for attracting them. However,before proposing his recommendation, he need an all-around (all-sided)consideration about the condition, including graduates, corporatecompanies and local economics. Based on limited aspects mentioned inthe argument, it can hardly be so convinced as he figured.

Firstly, there is no evidence to suggestthat the decline is caused by graduates' choice rather than companies'demand. While finding the jobs, large companies usually stand at thesuperior position and have more critical requirements. They have theadvantage to choose the best applicants, including ones who had workedfor years but not limited graduates. And it is truly hard for graduatesto keep in touch with the development of industry closely in college.Thus, the decline of the number of graduates who went to corporationfirms might be the result of the requirements' enhancing or thedeficiency of graduates' industry skills rather than their intent. Ifso, it is apparent that companies have no demand of more graduates.Consequently, they do not need to apply any new policies to attractmore graduates. Moreover, the demands of new employers are related toeconomics closely. If most of the corporation companies in M wererunning with a poor market condition, it will also contribute to thedecline. So the author should make sure that more graduates aredemanded for corporate firms first.

Secondly, more evidence should be offeredto demonstrate that the job satisfaction in small companies played akey role on the decline. In fact, it is more possible that corporatefirms can provide the better job satisfaction due to their goodeconomic conditions and maturity regulations, while small ones stillhave to endeavor for their survival    . Even though employers working insome of them need to work hard for the tough competition, it does notmean a poor satisfaction, since it can provide the precious (valuable)experience, which can not be encountered in small companies. Furthermore, when people made a choice in jobs, salary is always one of themost significant factors to be considered. The survey of first-yearstudents mentioned in the argument can not prove graduates focused lesson salary. It is common sense that graduates are different with freshdramatically. They have to face and consider more practical problems,such as house and daily expenses      , most of which can not be solvedwithout sufficient money. Thus, salary might be the dominant matterwhile graduates making the decision among jobs     .

Finally, even though the aspects above areproven, enhancing the benefits and reducing working time are not theonly ways to improve the situation and may be even ineffective. Eachkind of companies has its own advantages and disadvantages at the sametime. The best way to attract graduates is to apply its advantages wellrather than overcoming rivals roundly. Enhancing graduates' benefitsfreely for corporate firms might cause others' dissatisfaction andimpact companies' regulations, while reducing working time might leadto the decline of companies' profits. However, the corporate companiescan offer employers better trainings and attractive projects for theirfuture development. So they should adopt policies according to theirwon conditions rather than satisfying graduates' demand.

To sum up, if the author wants to convincethe companies to accept his suggestion, he should supply a moredetailed survey and analysis. Such little evidences in the argument canhardly support his recommendation well.

[ 本帖最后由 lovexxnu 于 2008-1-4 23:40 编辑 ]