argument3-[0806G-climate小组]-第一次作业-cfd02

cfd02UID: 2402020

Argument 3
------题目------
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.'
------正文------
The author argues that large, corporate firms of Megalopolis need to offer more benefits and incentives to graduates from law school, and these firms also need to reduce the graduates' work hours. To support this argument the author points out that more law school graduates went to small, general practice firms than large, corporate firms. The author also points out that graduates experience greater job satisfaction in small, general practice firms is the reason for the change of job selection. Nevertheless, I found the argument is flawed in several critical respects.

Assuming that offering graduates more benefits and incentives and reduce the number of hours they must work can lead more graduates to large, corporate firms and change status quo. The conclusion based on a survey result, which showed that students took high salary lightly and what they thought much of was the job satisfaction. Clearly, there is not sufficient cause and effect relationship between the survey result and the author's argument. Job satisfaction regarded important by students is not equal with benefits, incentives and less working hours offered by large companies.

Even if the survey result can suggests the author's proposition, the survey itself is dubious and unconvincing. First, the correspondents are first-year students, while the job selection suggestion is about graduates. It is entirely possible that the students’ point of view about job selection would change a lot during the four-year college life. Second, the students being investigated are all from one leading law school, which are insufficient to represent the law school students in Megalopolis. Third, we cannot know about the method of the investigation, so it can hardly make us believe that the correspondents answer the survey carefully and the statistical working process is accurate. Therefore, with the unconvincing and doubtful survey result, how can we accept the suggestion the author propose?

On the other hand, the author only indicates that the number of graduates who went to work for large companies declined by 15 percent over the last three years, and then suggest the larger firms need offer more benefits to attract more graduates. I found the author overlooked a fact that whether the larger firms would like to recruit graduates, maybe the firms inclined to appoint some people who have already worked for some years and had some working experiences. And only the small firms who are likely to use the novelty as graduates from school. If it is the fact, the author's suggestion is useless at all.

In conclusion, the author fails to convince me that large firms could attract graduates by offering them more benefits and incentives and reduce the working hours, and what is more, the author is not able to demonstrate that the large firm would like to recruit more graduates. To strengthen the argument the author must primarily make clear the problems I mentioned above. And then, to better assess the suggestion, I would need more detailed information about the survey and the truly inclination of the graduates.