【kaleidoscope】小组作业 ARGUMENT3 by atticuswang

wdassfmUID: 2542447

声明：因网路问题他本人穿不上去，我代劳了哈~

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.

提纲：

1. 法学院毕业生去大型公司的人数减少，而去小型公司的人数增多，或许并不是由于毕业生本人(job hunter)的主观意愿决定的，而可能是其他客观原因：比如在金融风暴的影响下大公司更容易受到影响从而使得招聘员工数目减少，但是小公司反而处于更有利的位置。

2. 法学院毕业生不去大型公司而去小型公司的原因可能并不是由于薪金问题（理由：大公司薪金高一些却还是缺乏吸引力），对于公司的满意程度，并不仅仅局限于薪金和工作时间两个方面，可能是其他的问题：比如大公司的地理位置，交通状况，文化环境等一时难以改变的情况，因此作者提出的提供更高的福利没有依据。

3.调查统计没有说服力，姑且不讨论调查的学校是一所leading law school，不具有很大的代表性；更重要的是调查的学生群体是first-year students，而不是graduates，这代表的不是graduates的观点，也就对公司没有参考意义。

The writer of this article suggests that the large, corporate firms of Megalopolis should offer more benefits and reduce the working hours in order to attract more graduates to work for them. To support his suggestion, the writer points the fact that the number of graduates went to work for large and corporate firms declined in the past 3 years while that who worked for small firms increased, then he assumes the reason to this fact is that students working for small firms experienced greater job satisfaction. Moreover, he cites a survey to prove students show greater interests in job satisfaction than salary. However, I find there are several flaws in this argument.

First , all over this article the writer attributes all this trend that graduates prefer small, practical firms to large, corporate firms to the subjective factor-graduates' choice- and I think this is biased. The writer ignores the possibility that maybe a number of graduates prefer large, corporate firms while the jobs offered are limited. Perhaps, as a result of economic crisis, large firms suffered more than small firms yet the latter got a better situation and offered more jobs. If it was in this case in the past 3 years, there was no doubt that more graduates took jobs in small firms both willingly and unwillingly. So the objective aspect leading to this trend should also be taken into consideration.

Secondly, the writer irresponsibly assumes that job satisfaction equals to higher salary and shorter working hours. Admittedly, few will dispute that a job with good pay and frequent vacation is rather attracting, yet one must consider more facts besides the two, such as the location of the firm, the office culture and so on. Perhaps graduates choose small firms because of convenient transportation,
or for the reason that price in the area is much lower, or because they are not willing to adapt themselves to the office of a large firm which are always overseas-funded enterprises with a mixture of different culture. As we can see, job satisfaction means much more than salary and working hours, therefore the writer's suggestion do not necessarily attract more graduates to work in the large, corporate firms.

Last but not least, the survey the writer cites lacks persuasion because it chooses the first-year student of a leading law school as the object. First, a leading law school in Megalopolis can not represent the other law schools in the city, and what the most ridiculous is first-year students are surveyed instead of graduates. As we all know, both jobs offered by the large firms and small ones are all oriented to the graduates and what they want to know more is about the graduates, not the first-year students who will stay in the tower of ivory for another 3 years. Consequently the firms can not make any reasonable decision to attract graduates according to such a unreliable survey with little use.

In conclusion, I think the writer's propose that large, corporate firms should offer graduates more benefits and incentives and reduce the working hours is unreasonable. To bolster his proposal, the writer needs to find out the real reason why less and less graduates go to large firms and more and more graduates go to small firms. Also, the writer should also make sure what exactly job satisfaction means, and what graduates concern when choosing a job, and the writer need another careful survey among the graduates all over the city to know the detail.

azoiUID: 2636348

批改在此~
The writer of this article suggests that the large, corporate firms of Megalopolis should offer more benefits and reduce the working hours in order to attract more graduates to work for them. To support his suggestion, the writer points the fact that the number of graduates went to work for large and corporate firms declined in the past 3 years while that who worked for small firms increased, then he assumes the reason to this fact is that students working for small firms experienced greater job satisfaction. Moreover, he cites a survey to prove students show greater interests in job satisfaction than salary. However, I find there are several flaws in this argument.

First , all over this article the writer attributes all this trend that graduates prefer small, practical firms to large, corporate firms to the subjective factor-graduates' choice- and I think this is biased(个人觉得which I think is biased 更好些). The writer ignores the possibility that maybe a number of graduates prefer large, corporate firms while the jobs offered are limited. Perhaps, as a result of economic crisis, large firms suffered more than small firms yet the latter got a better situation and offered more jobs. If it was in this case in the past 3 years, there was no doubt that more graduates took jobs in small firms both willingly and unwillingly. So the objective aspect leading to this trend should also be taken into consideration.

Secondly, the writer irresponsibly assumes that job satisfaction equals to higher salary and shorter working hours. Admittedly, few will dispute that a job with good pay and frequent vacation is rather attracting, yet one must consider more facts besides the two, such as the location of the firm, the office culture and so on. Perhaps graduates choose small firms because of convenient transportation,
or for the reason that price in the area is much lower, or because they are not willing to adapt themselves to the office of a large firm which are always overseas-funded enterprises with a mixture of different culture. As we can see, job satisfaction means much more than salary and working hours, therefore the writer's suggestion do not necessarily attract more graduates to work in the large, corporate firms.

Last but not least, the survey the writer cites lacks persuasion because it chooses the first-year student of a leading law school as the object. First, a leading law school in Megalopolis can not represent the other law schools in the city, and what the most ridiculous is first-year students are surveyed instead of graduates. As we all know, both jobs offered by the large firms and small ones are all oriented to the graduates and what they want to know more is about the graduates, not the first-year students who will stay in the tower of ivory for another 3 years. Consequently the firms can not make any reasonable decision to attract graduates according to such a unreliable survey with little use.

In conclusion, I think the writer's propose that large, corporate firms should offer graduates more benefits and incentives and reduce the working hours is unreasonable. To bolster his proposal, the writer needs to find out the real reason why less and less graduates go to large firms and more and more graduates go to small firms. Also, the writer should also make sure what exactly job satisfaction means, and what graduates concern when choosing a job, and the writer need another careful survey among the graduates all over the city to know the detail.

atticuswangUID: 2663189

Thanks.貌似A不好批改，辛苦啦！
还有，以后还是把各自的作文写完就贴出来吧，然后在QQ或者MSN里面给批改的人留个言，改的人以后只要回复原作者的跟帖就好……
2# azoi

azoiUID: 2636348

3# atticuswang
恩 好的 第一次难免经验不足……
我建议组长弄一个交作业贴，大家把链接贴上去，这样大家找别人的文章也方便，似乎别的小组也有这么做的