我的首篇 Argument 3 跪求拍砖～～

stillroseUID：2552513

Argument 3
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."

在Megalopolis，过去三年间在大型合伙事务所就职的法学院毕业生数量下降了15％，而在小型，一般性事务所就职的毕业生数量则在增加。尽管大型事务所通常提供高的多的薪水，法学院毕业生选择在小型事务所工作主要是因为他们感受到更高的工作满足感。一项对于顶尖法学院一年级学生的调查显示，多数人同意挣更多的钱没有工作满足感更重要的说法。这一现象启示我们，Megalopolis的大型合伙事务所应该给毕业生提供更多的福利和激励，并减少他们的工作时间。

是模仿北美的那篇写得。。。到后面基本是抄原文的呵呵（第一篇原谅一下，下次改进~ ^^）。。。
逻辑分析的模板套话都用颜色标出来了，不知道这种内容的成分是不是太多了？？
恳请拍砖~~~~ 感激不尽， 泪奔~~~~

The author concludes that the large law form should offer more benefits and incentives to new law-graduates in order to increase the yearly declining number of graduates hired. To justify this conclusion, the author notes that the number of law-graduates going to work for small firms has risen during the last three years. The author also cites a survey on first-year students of a leading law school to support his point. However, I find the argument contains several logical flaws, which render it unconvincing.

A threshold problem with argument is that the 15% decline is not necessarily due to the vocational preference of new law-school graduates. It is entirely possible that it is large corporate firms themselves reversely who take the initiative to reduce the number of new graduates they hire. Because large companies, in which usually obtian difficult work and fierce inside competition, rise the qualification of their clerks. Thus, much less new graduates passed the interview during the last three years. The author fails to account for this alternative explanation for the decline. If this is the case, the article's author cannot make any sound recommendations for large law firms based on that 15% decline.

As for the survey that the article cites, the vocational goals of first-year law students do not necessarily reflect those of graduating students. After all, the law students' goal can change over a three-year period. Moreover, the vocational goals of students at a "leading" law school do not necessarily respect
the overall pool of graduates that might seek employment with Megalopolis law firm. In fact, given that the school whose students participated in the survey was a “leading” school, it is entirely possible that the vast majority of the school’s graduates may choose among offers from many large firms in many cities. If so, this fact would further undermine the survey’s relevance in prescribing any course of action for Megalopolis’ law firm.

Finally, the author falsely equates the proposed tangible incentives with job satisfaction, which is an intangible reward based on the nature of one’s work. It is possibly that job satisfaction involves the working environment, high salary and the opportunity of development. If that is the case, the author’s recommendation about offering more benefits and incentives is impracticable.

In sum, the argument is logically flawed and therefore unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen the recommendation the author must give sufficient evidence to prove that the low benefit and incentives and long working hours are the most principal concerning that affect the law graduates’ opinion of large firm. Yet, the maximal logical flaw of this argument is the ignorance of large firms’ demand for their new employees. Additionally, there still needs an in-depth survey on the overall pool of related people. (467 words)