argument3 [0710G ＋U Aug小组] gungun

SatanicUID: 2362211

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: 379          TIME: 00:27:45          DATE: 2007-8-19 11:49:55

In this analysis, the arguer attempts to convince us that corporate firms of Megalopolis need to raise their salary and reduce the working hour. To substantiate this conclusion the author cites the survey of first-year students at a leading law school with the seemly conclusion that job satisfaction is far more important than salary. While this argument has some merits, some [conspicuous] flaws seriously undermine the line of reasoning.

The author states that the number of graduates who went for large and corporate firms decline by 15 percent in last three years. This is not a supportive evidence to draw the conclusion that corporate firms need to offer more benefits. Perhaps society economical environment is not as good in the legislation realm in recent year as that of last decade. Corporate firms can not afford to recruit more new employees, and, even, on the contrast, end the contract of some experienced workers. Perhaps smaller firms are more [agilitate] and can bear the economical wave. Without illustrating clearly the recent social economical environment, the author can not draw such groundless conclusion.

The survey the author cited to support his conclusion seems acceptable but suffer the hasty generalization fault and have several serious flaws. The thought of first-year students can not generalize the thought of graduates. And the scale of attendee focusing on a leading law school is so narrow that it can not apply to graduate all over the city of Megalopolis. Most importantly, the conclusion that they are agreed with a high salary is less important than job satisfaction is [alleviating] with the conclusion of the argument that firms should increase the salary. Such obvious flaws lying in this survey make the survey sound groundless and ,even , [fictious].

The conclusion of this argument make a oversimplification flaw that the author advocate to reduce the number the hours employees must work which is not supported by any evidence or survey in the above analysis. Graduate students are assiduous and more attentive to job satisfaction. They may accept the fact of working extra hours for their firms and, of course, for their career.

In summary, this argument is not persuasive as it stands. To make it more acceptable, the arguer must illustrate the social [environment] and more details about the survey.