argument3 第一篇 求拍

小菲戈1988UID: 2543637

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


    In this argument, the arguer concludes that large corporate firms of megaololis should offer graduates more benefits and incentives and reduce the number of hours they must work. To justify the conclusion, the arguer points out that the number of law school graduates who went to large corporate firms reduced over the last three years,The arguer also use the result of a survey of first-year students from a lending law school to indicate that the law school graduates need more job satisfaction than a high salary. However, I find this argument logically unconvincing in several aspects.
     First of all,the arguer failed to convince us that lack of satisfaction result in the 15%percent decline in the number of law school graduates who went to large corporate firms after graduate.It is entirely possible that many students didn't pass the interview of large corporate firms,or,the large corporate firms decided not to receive too many new workers in order to improve the efficiency. Given that lack of satisfaction result in the decline in the number of law school graduates who went to large corporate firms,the arguer fails to provide any evidence that graduates of law school need more satisfaction,the first-year students of a lending law school can not represent the law school graduates.So,the result of the survey of the first-year students at a lending law school can not prove law school graduates need more satisfaction.
     In addition, there is no evidence necessarily support that large corporate firms should offer graduates more benefits and incentives and reduce the number of hours they must work. The competition in large corporation is more drastic than that in small corporation, surely, workers will experience less job satisfaction,it is a objective fact.
     To sum up, this argument is logically flawed therefore unconvincing as it stands,to strengthen the conclusion, the grguer should provide more evidence to support that lack of satisfaction result in the 15%percent decline in the number of law school graduates who went to large corporate firms.Additionally, used a more convincing survey's result to support that law school students need more satisfaction than a high salary.

xiaoyaozi5566UID: 2510336

这篇错误还是很好找的啊，你忽略了以下三点：
1、调查的对象问题（只调查了一年级学生，其实更重要的是毕业生的看法。然后只调查了一所顶尖学校，没有代表性）
2、没有证据显示小公司的工作满足感高
3、作者的建议不妥，并没有说对工作时间不满，另外大型公司的福利已经不少了，加福利并不解决问题
看来还是新手，多练几篇就好了，加油！

TryFlyUID: 2600601

In this argument, the arguer concludes that large corporate firms of megaololis should offer graduates more benefits and incentives and reduce the number of hours they must work. To justify the conclusion, the arguer points out that the number of law school graduates who went to large corporate firms reduced over the last three years,The arguer also use(use) the result of a survey of first-year students from a lending law school to indicate that the law school graduates need more job satisfaction than a high salary. However, I find this argument logically unconvincing in several aspects.
     First of all,the arguer failed(fails) to convince us that lack of satisfaction result in the 15%percent decline in the number of law school graduates who went to large corporate firms after graduate.It is entirely possible that many students didn't pass the interview of large corporate firms,or,the large corporate firms decided not to receive too many new workers in order to improve the efficiency. Given that lack of satisfaction result in the decline in the number of law school graduates who went to large corporate firms,the arguer fails to provide any evidence that graduates of law school need more satisfaction,the first-year students of a lending law school can not represent the law school graduates.So,the result of the survey of the first-year students at a lending law school can not prove law school graduates need more satisfaction.
     In addition, there is no evidence necessarily support that large corporate firms should offer graduates more benefits and incentives and reduce the number of hours they must work. The competition in large corporation is more drastic than that in small corporation, surely, workers will experience less job satisfaction,it is a objective fact.
     To sum up, this argument is logically flawed therefore unconvincing as it stands,to strengthen the conclusion, the grguer should provide more evidence to support that lack of satisfaction results in the 15%percent decline in the number of law school graduates who went to large corporate firms.Additionally, used a more convincing survey's result to support that law school students need more satisfaction than a high salary.    感觉语法上有一些小错误，就是我们作为论述的一般用现在时，而如果引用到文章作者的东西的话，就用它原来的时态 .....  fighting!!!!!

小菲戈1988UID: 2543637

额~我想问一下，我觉得你说的第一点我没有忽略啊~第二点我是忽略了~第三点我也有提到。还有~argument要把所有错误全讲出来吗？~还是挑重点的错误就可以了？~望指教~ 2# xiaoyaozi5566

小菲戈1988UID: 2543637

thanks~ 3# TryFly