Argument3(0806G-AW小组),第一次作业

guomin1437UID: 2411571

第一次写A,请大家狂拍
Argument3
题目:
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 in 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."

正文:
In this analysis, the arguer claims that large, corporate firms of Megalopolis should need to offer graduates more benefits and incentives and reduce the number of hours they must work. This recommendation is based on the investment that the number of law school student in Megalopolis are likely to wok for smaller, general practice firms rather than large, corporate firms over the last three years. In the same time the arguer assumes that the students of law could experience greater job satisfaction at smaller firms and they think that earning a higher salary was less important than job satisfaction. This argument suffers from several critical fallacies.

In the first place, the data that the number of law school graduates who went to work for large firms declined by 15 percent has other reasons except for that they are not satisfied with it. It is possible that the clients are likely to go to smaller firms as their law agents. So the large law firms have not so much business as before, and the need of the employee has a decline as a result. Another possibility is that the large law firms need experienced personnel rather than the candidates who have just come out of college for their business is usually complicated and critical, and they are glad to employ the workers who have been worked for smaller firms. So there are many positions applicable for the graduates in smaller firms while the employees in smaller firms are likely to leave the original positions for a better work environment in large firms. Therefore there are likely the subjective factors rather than the desire of the graduates which conducts the flow of directions of the graduates.

In the second place, even if the graduates choose to work for the smaller firms they are not simply for the reason that they experience greater job satisfaction at smaller firms as the speaker states. The graduates who choose to work for the smaller firms are likely to want to accumulate experience in order to acquire a better opportunity in the future. And in a smaller firm they not only learned the major technology but also management experience of opening a law firm which is not possible acquired in large firms and which lay a basis for their own undertaking.

In the end, the investment at a leading law school can not represent the overall circumstance for the students of the school likely have a value choice of easy living rather than salary due to education they received in college. But this can not say that all the law graduates over the country are tending to to hired by smaller firms all of their lives.

To conclude, the argument is not persuasive in cited aspects above. To solidify the argument, the arguer should offer the worker flowing of law field to illustrate the real reason of the work tendency of the graduates and make more investments in different colleges in order to relieve the backdrop of this phenomenon.                                       (共502字)

[ 本帖最后由 guomin1437 于 2008-1-1 05:49 编辑 ]

lovexxnuUID: 2376964

In this analysis, the arguer claims that large, corporate firms of Megalopolis should need to offer graduates more benefits and incentives and reduce the number of hours they must work. This recommendation is based on the investment that（result of investment）the number of law school student in Megalopolis are likely to wok for smaller, general(主语是number? Number不能执行后面的动作吧) practice firms rather than large, corporate firms over the last three years. In (at) the same time the arguer assumes that the students of law could experience greater job satisfaction at smaller firms and they think that earning a higher salary was less important than job satisfaction. (加半句过度好一些吧although…)This argument suffers from several critical fallacies. In the first place, the data(感觉不好) that the number of law school graduates who went to work for large firms declined by 15 percent has other reasons except for（也就是说arguer的观点也成立只是不全面） that they(指代什么呢？) are not satisfied with it. It is possible that the clients are likely to go to smaller firms as their law agents. So the large law firms have not so much business as before, and the need（demand） of the employee has a decline as a result. Another possibility is that the large law firms need experienced personnel rather than the candidates who have just come out of college for their business is usually complicated and critical(主语是什么在哪里？), and they are glad to employ the workers who have been worked for smaller firms. So there are many positions applicable for the graduates in smaller firms while the employees in smaller firms are likely to leave the original positions for a better work environment in large firms. Therefore there are likely the subjective factors rather than the desire of the graduates which conducts the flow of directions of the graduates.
这一段是要说明什么呢？根本没有提到为什么arguer的recommendation不好啊，只说了可能是其他原因产生的这个结果，但是和题目不相关啊，应该在引申深入一下吧
TS中表示arguer的观点也成立只是不全面，但是段中都没有一点攻击其不全面的语句出现，只是罗列了几个还有可能导致这种结果的原因，攻击不够直接。
In the second place, even if the graduates choose to work for the smaller firms（由于第一段没有出现graduates选择小公司的语句出现，even if在逻辑上没有呼应） they are not simply for the reason that they experience greater job satisfaction at smaller firms as the speaker states. The graduates who choose to work for the smaller firms are likely to want to accumulate experience in order to acquire a better opportunity in the future. And in a smaller firm they not only learned the major technology but also management experience of opening a law firm which is not possible acquired in large firms and which lay a basis for their own undertaking.
没有展开，不够深入，而且反驳的不够直接，感觉像是在给arguer做补充，而不是反驳他的观点
In the end, the investment at a leading law school can not represent the overall circumstance for the students of the school likely have a value choice of easy living rather than salary due to education they received in college（TS句这么长，而且指代不不明，感觉句子表达的有问题）. But this can not say that all the law graduates over the country are tending to to hired by smaller firms all of their lives.
两句应该不能成一段吧，而且一个TS这么长，支持的部分就这么短的一句。
To conclude, the argument is not persuasive in cited aspects above. To solidify the argument, the arguer should offer the worker flowing of law field to illustrate the real reason of the work tendency of the graduates and make more investments in different colleges in order to relieve the backdrop of this phenomenon.

整体讲，句子用的还可以，比较流畅
开头太长，3，4段太短，没有把问题展开，反驳道不够直接，感觉总是在说arguer的考虑到不全面，而没有说出这些
不全面导致这个论点是错误的。
如果是第一次写，写成这样已经可以了，还不错，至少语句是流畅的。

[ 本帖最后由 lovexxnu 于 2008-1-1 21:16 编辑 ]

guomin1437UID: 2411571

谢谢lovexxnu的改评,批的很中肯
写的时候感觉就不好,打字也很慢,写到第三段的时候用了一个小时,为了赶速度加上没有东西可写,就煞尾了

liuchun1987UID: 2398171

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.
这一段论证不充分，批驳的内容不多，主要是第二三四句，但感觉两句间的逻辑关系不太明显，咋一看有点莫名其妙，个人建议将第四句段首的and改为逻辑关系明显点的because之类的。而且你再拍我的A中提到的反面论证，个人觉得是可以采用的（看北美的很多都是反面论证的），可以用反面的其中一个可能（注意是其中一个）来反驳观点。而文中，的确是列出了反面，但从逻辑上感觉像只有这一种反面，太绝对了，不严密。（呼~~不知道有没有说清楚）
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（mature？） regulations（management会不会更好点？）, while small ones still have to endeavor for their survival. Even though employers working in some of them（指代不明） need to work hard for the tough competition, it does not mean a poor satisfaction, since it can provide the precious (valuable) experience（原文中并没有提到experience就是satisfaction，这样不就是自己假设了么？）, 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.（感觉又像是假设） 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.
（感觉只要批驳了原叙述就可以了，不必要再延伸，A不要加太多的自我观点） 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.

看完以后，唯一的感觉就是像ISSUE，加了太多的个人观点了。个人认为A就是一堆逻辑。不过你的语言功底挺扎实，多看几篇A，再看点新东方老师的谋篇套路（虽然老套，但用来上手的确有用）吧。
个人水平有限，有改错的还需指正。

[ 本帖最后由 liuchun1987 于 2008-1-5 18:39 编辑 ]