Argument3【0806G-Sunbird小组】第6次作业

lewis0409220UID: 2238498

TOPIC: ARGUMENT3 - 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."
WORDS: 400

In this argument, the author claims that large firms in Megaloplis should provide law school graduates more benefits and incentives and cut the working hours because more graduates prefer small firms to large ones for greater job satisfaction. The conclusion, which seems to be right for a first glance, is weakened by several reasons.
The major problem of the argument is that no arresting evidence reveals that lack of job satisfaction in large company caused the number of law school graduates working for large firms declined. Many reasons could induce the decline. Maybe large firms need fewer employees in the last three years for having received a large amount before. As a result, although many candidates exist, a few of them would be in the large companies. To support the association between lack of job satisfaction and the small number in large firms, the arguer cites the suspect survey of first-year students at a leading law school.  Far from society, the first-year students feel less pressure of life than graduates, and it follows that they approve the point of view that salary is less important than job satisfaction. More over, the leading law school makes them more competitive and powerful in the worker market and they don't have to think to much about payment. But that is absolutely different for graduates in normal law schools who have to face the difficult of life and strongly competition which will lead them to attach importance to salary. In short, the survey fails to convince us that graduates in Megaloplis consider job satisfaction plays a more important role than salary. So, more obviously bridge between lack of job satisfaction and the reduction of  the number in large firms need be built.
In addition, even lack of job satisfaction causing the decreasing of worker-number in large firms, whether employees get more job satisfaction after offering more benefits and incentives and reducing the number of working hours is to be considered. It is possible that strong-strength working but mot long-time working reflect on pressure which results in scarcity of content in working.
In conclusion, the argument is not well reasoned. To strengthen it, more evidence in establishing a causal relationship between lack of job satisfaction and the decreasing of the number in large firms is needed. Additionally, the arguer must make sure that the measures mentioned in the argument is useful to get more job satisfaction.

[ 本帖最后由 lewis0409220 于 2007-12-2 11:32 编辑 ]

edith_sleepingUID: 2368536

先占个位子 晚点拍 等下有考试
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1这个是我刚写完的

fujuan121UID: 2427761

In this argument, the author claims that large firms in Megaloplis should provide law school graduates more benefits and incentives and cut the working hours because more graduates prefer small firms to large ones for greater job satisfaction. The conclusion, which seems to be right for a first glance, is weakened by several reasons.
The major problem of the argument is that no arresting evidence reveals that lack of job satisfaction in large company caused the number of law school graduates working for large firms declined. Many reasons could induce the decline. Maybe large firms need fewer employees in the last three years for having received a large amount before. As a result, although many candidates exist, a few of them would be in the large companies. To support the association between lack of job satisfaction and the small number in large firms, the arguer cites the suspect survey of first-year students at a leading law school.  Far from society, the first-year students feel less pressure of life than graduates, and it follows that they approve the point of view that salary is less important than job satisfaction. More over, the leading law school makes them more competitive and powerful in the worker market and they don't have to think too much about payment. But that is absolutely different for graduates in normal law schools who have to face the difficult of life and strongly competition which will lead them to attach importance to salary. In short, the survey fails to convince us that graduates in Megaloplis consider job satisfaction plays a more important role than salary. So, more obviously bridge between lack of job satisfaction and the reduction of  the number in large firms need be built.
In addition, even lack of job satisfaction causing the decreasing of worker-number in large firms, whether employees get more job satisfaction after offering more benefits and incentives and reducing the number of working hours is to be considered. It is possible that strong-strength working but mot long-time working reflect on pressure which results in scarcity of content in working.
In conclusion, the argument is not well reasoned. To strengthen it, more evidence in establishing a causal relationship between lack of job satisfaction and the decreasing of the number in large firms is needed. Additionally, the arguer must make sure that the measures mentioned in the argument is useful to get more job satisfaction.你指出了两个逻辑错误写的很地道

[ 本帖最后由 fujuan121 于 2007-12-6 17:37 编辑 ]