argument3|0806G-AW小组|第一次作业

liuchun1987UID: 2398171

ARGUMENT3


In this newspaper article about law firms in the city of Megalopolis,the writer concludes that in order to save the situation that the number of law school graduates going to work for large firms declined while the number of graduates  working for small firms increased,it is necessary for large firms to offer more benefits and incentives.To support this conclusion,the writer cites some surveys of law school.however, I find this argument flawed in some aspects.
Firstly,the fewer number of graduates going to work for large firms do not necessarily indicate that fewer graduates prefer to work for it.Perhaps,in fact many graduates want to work for these large,corporate firms,however,the number of jobs which these large firms offer decline over the passed three years for some certain reasons ,such as full workers in these firms or adoption of reducing-worker-act which came out three years ago.In that way,the speaker fails to get the above conclusion.Lacking enough explanation to this declined number,the writer  in this article can not convince me that the suggestion for these large firms is necessary.
Secondly,the survey that most of  first-year students at a leading law school agreed that earning a high salary was less important to them than job satisfaction is flawed in some aspects.maybe with accumulating personal experience the version of first-year students might change rapidly over these years.thus it is too early to make this conclusion from immature version of freshman.on the other hand,the writer incorrectly extend opinions from law students at a leading school to reflect all law students’ viewpoints in megalopolis.Perhaps,while the graduates at a leading school who have qualification to choose different scale firms pay more attention for the job satisfaction ,the graduates in common school who compose large proportion of law graduates just want a desire job offering high salaries.without ruling out clear evidence to support that job satisfaction is more important than salaries for all law graduates,this argument is untenable.
Thirdly,even if law graduates prefer greater job satisfaction at smaller firms to high salaries at  large,corporate  firms,the effective method of the large firms is to provide job satisfaction to the graduates,not  increasing benefits and incentives and reducing the number of work hours as the writer cited.Because more benefits and incentives and less number of work hours which equals more pay for each hour are just a type of increasing salaries which still can not satisfy the law graduates.Thus the writer's suggestion can not improve the lack of law students at large company.
Finally,the argument is logically flawed and therefore unconvincing as it stands.To strengthen it, the writer much provide clear statements and enough evidence--perhaps the survey including most law students going to work in megalopolis—to support that numbers of law graduates prefer job satisfaction . even if such statements and evidence were provided,the argument is still flawed because of the irrelevant suggestion.                                                     （471WORDS）

lovexxnuUID: 2376964

　
　晚上改．．　恩　要狠拍

liuchun1987UID: 2398171

热烈欢迎

guomin1437UID: 2411571

In this newspaper article about law firms in the city of Megalopolis,the writer concludes that in order to save the situation that the number of law school graduates going to work for large firms declined(句子意思太中国化了,挽救局势后面的that,用改变好些,挽救不好吧?) while the number of graduates  working for small firms increased,it is necessary for large firms to offer more benefits and incentives.To support this conclusion,the writer cites some surveys of law school. however, I find this argument flawed in some aspects.
Firstly, the fewer number of graduates going to work for large firms do not necessarily indicate that fewer graduates prefer to work for it.Perhaps,in fact many graduates want to work for these large,corporate firms,however,the number of jobs which these large firms offer decline over the passed three years for some certain reasons ,such as full workers in these firms or adoption of reducing-worker-act which came out three years ago.In that way,the speaker fails to get the above conclusion.Lacking enough explanation to this declined number,the writer  in this article can not convince me that the suggestion for these large firms is necessary.
这一段反驳的比较好哦,很直接,感觉比我的好多了
Secondly,the survey that most of  first-year students at a leading law school agreed that earning a high salary was less important to them than job satisfaction is flawed in some aspects.maybe with accumulating personal experience the version of first-year students might change rapidly over these years.thus it is too early to make this conclusion from immature version of freshman.on the other hand,the writer incorrectly extend opinions from law students at a leading school to reflect all law students’ viewpoints in megalopolis.Perhaps,while the graduates at a leading school who have qualification to choose different scale firms pay more attention for the job satisfaction ,the graduates in common school who compose large proportion of law graduates just want a desire job offering high salaries.without ruling out clear evidence to support that job satisfaction is more important than salaries for all law graduates,this argument is untenable.
把第二句和第三句的反驳放在了一起说,感觉不太好,而且对satisfaction的反驳上只是说出了几个可能性,没有正面他的错误
Thirdly,even if law graduates prefer greater job satisfaction at smaller firms to high salaries at  large,corporate  firms,the effective method of the large firms is to provide job satisfaction to the graduates,not  increasing benefits and incentives and reducing the number of work hours as the writer cited.Because more benefits and incentives and less number of work hours which equals more pay for each hour are just a type of increasing salaries which still can not satisfy the law graduates.Thus the writer's suggestion can not improve the lack of law students at large company.
本段说服力不强,你做了假设,就是satisfaction equals more pay for each hour是不成立的,satisfaction不只是时间的问题
Finally,the argument is logically flawed and therefore unconvincing as it stands.To strengthen it, the writer much provide clear statements and enough evidence--perhaps the survey including most law students going to work in megalopolis—to support that numbers of law graduates prefer job satisfaction . even if such statements and evidence were provided,the argument is still flawed because of the irrelevant suggestion.  

你写的还不错,有些地方是直接的回击,例如第一段,但有些地方和我一样,只是说了另外可能的原因和可能的结果,没有给人一针见血的感觉,这是我们共同努力的
                  
非常抱歉,因为我对A还没有多少学习,只是我个人的见解,纰漏很多,请见谅,另外因为A对语言的要求更低,就没有改语言,但 还是应该多练的.

liuchun1987UID: 2398171

多谢批改，收获很大。

liuchun1987UID: 2398171

说要给我改A的lovexxnu哪里去了？

lovexxnuUID: 2376964

In this newspaper article(how do you knoe?) about law firms(题目可以总结成是关于法律公司的吗？感觉不太恰当) in the city of Megalopolis,the writer concludes that in order to save the situation that the number of law school graduates going to work for large firms declined while the number of graduates working （换成 ones）for small firms increased, it is necessary for large firms to offer more benefits and incentives.To support this conclusion,the writer cites some surveys of law school.however, I find this argument flawed in some aspects（below）.
第一段对题目重复的不好，没有准确的表达题目的意思，如果要重复题目的话，最好把题目的内容讲清楚。
Firstly,the fewer number（number可以用few修饰吗？） of graduates going to work for large firms do not necessarily（是否该去掉？） indicate that fewer graduates prefer to work for it.Perhaps,in fact（perhaps的怎么还能in fact？） many graduates want to work for these large,corporate firms,however,the number of jobs which these large firms offer decline over the passed three years（这个时间段修饰的话前面句子是不是应该用过去时） for some certain reasons ,such as full workers in these firms or adoption of reducing-worker-act which came out three years ago.In that way,the speaker fails to get the above（没怎么见过放名词前面的） conclusion（太笼统了吧）.Lacking enough explanation to this declined number,the writer  in this article can not convince me（argument最好不要出现第一人称） that the suggestion for these large firms is necessary.
感觉展开的不够，回顾一下这段的说明部分，貌似只有一个长句最多算两句，一两句话就能说明问题吗？

Secondly,the survey that most of  first-year students at a leading law school agreed that earning a high salary was less important to them than job satisfaction is flawed in some aspects（有些笼统，而且几个从句套在一起感觉句式不好）.maybe with accumulating personal experience the version of first-year students might change rapidly over these years.thus it is too early to make this conclusion from immature version of freshman.on the other hand（一般不单独使用）,the writer incorrectly extend opinions from law students at a leading school to reflect（extend to sb.就可以了，reflect去掉） all law students’ viewpoints in megalopolis.Perhaps,while the graduates at a leading school who have qualification to choose different scale firms pay more attention for the job satisfaction ,the graduates in common school who compose large proportion of law graduates just want a desire job offering high salaries（这个关系不大吧，有个挑就认为钱不重要吗？换成经济条件好的和经济条件一般的会比较好吧）.without ruling out clear evidence to support that job satisfaction is more important than salaries for all law graduates,this argument is untenable.
这段写的还可以，比上段好

Thirdly,even if law graduates prefer greater job satisfaction at smaller firms to high salaries at  large,corporate  firms,the effective method of the large firms is to provide job satisfaction to the graduates(句子不通，没读懂，找清楚主语，谓语),not  increasing benefits and incentives and reducing the number of work hours as the writer cited（句子没必要写这么长吧）.Because more benefits and incentives and less number of work hours which equals more pay for each hour are just a type of increasing salaries which still can not satisfy the law graduates(how do you know this?你后面又没有论据支持).Thus the writer's suggestion can not improve the lack of law students at large company（这个把题目的主体给扩大了吧，应该是graduate students）.
还是和第一段一样，只由两三个长句组成，一很难让人读懂，二不容易说明问题
只说arguer的方法不行，而没有说为什么不行，也没有提出自己认为更好的方法。
就算那些措施和加工资一样，也没有人说加工资还是不能改善现状啊。


Finally,the argument is logically flawed and therefore unconvincing as it stands.To strengthen it, the writer much provide clear statements and enough evidence--perhaps the survey including most law students going to work（这个不等同于graduate students） in megalopolis—to support that numbers of law graduates prefer job satisfaction. even if such statements and evidence were provided,the argument is still flawed because of the irrelevant suggestion（哪些？不清楚）.

太多笼统的词语在里面，例如some aspects，后面又没有说明，让人对不上号。最好是把事情讲清楚
句子写的太长，而标志性连词用地又不多，让人看不懂，摸不清逻辑
最好长短句子结合，长句最好有hower,since,for,due to 等词语，非限制性定语从句可以用逗号分开

我拍的比较狠，不要介意啊，不狠不会提高，没有意义， 加油！！ 这才是开始
                                            

guomin1437UID: 2411571

赞一个,lovexxnu批的很精彩

liuchun1987UID: 2398171

感谢的很呢，怎么会介意?
呵呵~

liuchun1987UID: 2398171

很谢谢lovexxnu，拍的很好，感觉自己收获很大，但还有一些问题不明白，希望能够请教一下。
1，newspaper article 是在标题中出现的，我想应该能够使用吧.
2, do not necessarily indicate 某事不一定导致某事，个人觉的不错的结构。
3，第一段lovexxnu只是说了话少，想知道主要的论述问题在哪里？
4，convice me在北美的一些文章中用过，而且只是有me并没有提及个人观点，不是是否一定不能用？
5，the effective method of the large firms is to provide job satisfaction to the graduates 望指正该句的语法错误（此句只能那么长了，因为有好几个长的并列成分，为什么不能用长句呢？）
希望有人看到的话能够指教一下。

lovexxnuUID: 2376964

1，你没有标出题目，我记错了。。
2, 恩是不错的结构
3，第一段不是话少了，而是没有涵盖题目的内容 To support this conclusion,the writer cites some surveys of law school， 这个是arguer的唯一论据吗？如果是对话，那直接批这一个论据就可以了。个人认为第一段应该包含了你后面想要批的所有矛盾。
4，不是一定，但是会削弱客观性
5，问的是你前面那个corporate firms ，你这一句不算长，但是和前面那些合起来就长了