Argument3\0806G-AW小组\第一次作业

zhilanchongUID: 2174245

ARGUMENT3 - The following appeared in a newspaper article about law firms in the city of Megalopolis.
字数：379         用时：01:05:00          日期：01/01/2008(尽力了)

This article conclude that offering more benefits and incentive and reducing working hours is the way to prevent the reducing number of graduates from law school chancing work in the large, corporate firm in Megalopolis(M). To support the conclusion, the author notes that the number of the graduates who go to work at the small firm has increased at the same time and the reason of their choices is the job satisfaction. And the author cites a survey from the fist year students at a leading law school. I find that this article contains some logical flaws in three aspects

First, a 15% decline does not indicate that it is the result of the graduates’ vocational choice. The action in labor market is the two-way choice. The author only shows one aspect that the graduates have opportunity to choose their vocational preference in labor market. He neglects the demand of the large, corporate firm. The more important is that he neglects the large firm always has the superior position in labor market due to their better salary and better work choices. So the author must clarify the reason of the decline first.

Second, the author cites an inappropriate survey to support the conclusion. The survey shows the vocational choice of the first year students in a leading law school in M. The author unfairly to assume the first year students’ choice would not change past three years study. And the first year students’ choices are equivalent to the choice of the graduates is also unfair. Further more, he survey only carry out in a “leading” law school, it could not represent to the ideas of another general law school students.

Finally, the author is unfairly assumed that benefits rose and reducing working hours will be enhancing the job satisfaction. The job satisfaction is a kind of feeling the graduates satisfied to what they acquire from working. It means enhancing benefits and reducing working time is not an effective way to change the situation in M.   

In sum, the article is logically flawed and therefore unconvincing as it stands. If the author clarify the reason of the decline and provide more information of labor market in M, he will give more suitable suggestions to improve the working market in M. (379字）

Northeast-WindUID: 2408896

周四一定拍好

[ 本帖最后由 Northeast-Wind 于 2008-1-3 00:43 编辑 ]

Northeast-WindUID: 2408896

This article conclude(时态不对) that offering more benefits and incentive（S加上） and reducing working hours is the way to prevent the reducing number of graduates from law school chancing work in the large, corporate firm in Megalopolis(M). To support the conclusion, the author notes that the number of the graduates who go to work at the small firm has increased at the same time and the reason of their choices is the job satisfaction. And the author cites a survey from the fist year students at a leading law school. I find that this article contains some logical flaws in three aspects.

First, a 15% decline does not indicate that it is the result of the graduates’ vocational choice. The action in labor market is the two-way(double sides/two-side/double derections/two-derection,我也不清楚，但就是觉得two-way不对劲) choice. The author only shows one aspect that the graduates have opportunity to choose their vocational preference in labor market. （加一个转折会好一些，however之类的）He neglects the demand of the large, corporate firm, the other aspect（既然有one aspect，为什么不加一个the other呢）. The more important is that he neglects the large firm (与上句略有重复，可否合为一句话更简洁)always has the superior position（用priority是否更好一些） in labor market due to their better salary and better work choices. So the author must clarify the reason of the decline first（这是否暗含着你的观点才是真正原因呢？要小心，尽管你指出的原因可能是正确原因之一，但也许还有更多的可能性。我们只需要指出更多的可能原因是存在的以反驳作者，并没有必要证明真正的原因是什么）.

Second, the author cites an inappropriate survey to support the conclusion. The survey shows the vocational choice（调查的内容并不是职业选择——即选择什么职业，而是职业选择的标准或是态度之类的东西） of the first year students in a leading law school in M. The author unfairly to assume the first year students’ choice（如上，同样问题） would not change past （through/after?）three years study. And the first year students’ choices are equivalent to the choice(s加上) of the graduates is also unfair. Further more, he survey only carry out in a “leading” law school, it could not represent to the ideas of another（other） general law school students.

Finally, the author is unfairly assumed that(这个句式在上一段出现过，多样化一下噢)  benefits rose（笔误吧） and reducing working hours will be enhancing（为什么要用将来进行时？）the job satisfaction. The job satisfaction is a kind of feeling the graduates satisfied（be satisfied to ……） to what they acquire from working（最好能稍微点出对于职业的满意感来可能自于何处，这样自然就驳倒原文的结论） It means enhancing benefits and reducing working time is not an effective way to change the situation in M.   

In sum, the article is logically flawed and therefore unconvincing as it stands. If the author clarify the reason of the decline and provide more information of labor market in M, he will give more suitable suggestions to improve the working market in M.（最后一段感觉没有囊括全文进行总结，只针对你所论证的第一部分总结了一下）

综合全文看，宏观的篇章逻辑比较清楚，但是最后一段缺陷明显。在驳论的具体段落中，一方面一些语言组织要加强逻辑性、同时尽量避免技术类的失误，另一方面要避免在反对作者的主观态度同时陷入了自己的主观态度、并且开放的展开论述，这些不足使得该文的攻击力被削弱不少。
希望继续努力，看着你们都写上了，我心里急啊。真为自己担心啊，汗。

[ 本帖最后由 Northeast-Wind 于 2008-1-4 00:50 编辑 ]

Northeast-WindUID: 2408896