Argument3【0806G-Sunbird小组】第6次作业

toumingsenlinUID: 2344846

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: 469          TIME: 00:25:00          DATE: 2007-11-28 17:30:23
In the argument, the author comes to the conclusion that large, corporate firms of Megalopolis need to offer more benefits and incentive and reduce the working hours to attract more graduates working for them. A basis of this recommendation is that the number of graduates working for big firms decline while the number in small firms rises. An additional reason in support of this recommendation is that graduates can get more job satisfaction in small firms than in bigger ones. The author also cites a survey which conduced in a leading law school as an example to fortify the conclusion. A careful examination would reveal how groundless it is.

First of all, the author attempts to establish a causal relationship between job satisfaction and declined number of graduates in big firms. While job satisfaction is an important element in determining employment, it is hardly the only one. To establish a causal relationship between them two, other factors that could result in declined number of graduates should be considered. For example, the open positions for graduates in big firms are limited because they prefer people with working experience to green hands. While at the same time, the smaller firms are at the stage of beginning which focus on developing potential young leader from interns. As a result, graduates have to choose small firms. The author's failure to investigate other possible explanation for low employment of graduates in big firms renders the conclusion based upon it highly suspect.

In addition, the author assumes that the opinions of freshmen in a leading law school can reflect all graduates' opinions among other law schools. The argument fails to offer any sufficient evidence to substantiate this crucial assumption. Absent such evidence, it is most likely that graduates in most law schools pay much attention to high salary rather than job satisfaction. After all, we have to admit that people's ideas and thinking always vary with age. For that matter, the author's recommendation would amount to poor advice.

Furthermore, the author falsely depends on a gratuitous assumption that more benefits and short working hours means high job satisfaction for graduates. Although in general it is the case, the problem is that graduates in Megalopolis might lay more stress on training opportunity, company's culture and working atmosphere. Without ruling out such possibility, the author can not safely draw any significant conclusion.

To sum up, the conclusion reached in the argument lacks credibility since the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the author claims. To make the argument more convincing, the author should provide more information concerning survey aimed at graduates in all law graduates in citywide. To better evaluate the argument, we need more concrete evidence that the demand of graduates from big firms and small firms. Otherwise the argument is logically unacceptable.

norman518UID: 188582

In the argument, the author comes to the conclusion that large, corporate firms of Megalopolis need to offer more benefits and incentive and reduce the working hours to attract more graduates working for them. A basis of this recommendation is that the number of graduates working for big firms decline while the number in small firms rises. An additional reason in support of this recommendation is that graduates can get more job satisfaction in small firms than in bigger ones【看来你找到了，原文中有个关键的前提“应届毕业生选择小公司是基于：他们更看重职业满足感而非高工资（而小公司貌似能给他们提供这种职业满足感，但作者提供的论据survey and a fact并不能为其提供支撑）”】. The author also cites a survey which conduced in a leading law school as an example to fortify the conclusion. A careful examination would reveal how groundless it is.
【Begin：对题目内容进行了自己的改写，但怎样言简意赅？---我还没摸索出门道，你有何建议？】

First of all, the author attempts to establish a causal relationship between job satisfaction and declined number of graduates in big firms. While job satisfaction is an important element in determining employment, it is hardly the only one. To establish a causal relationship between them two, other factors that could result in declined number of graduates should be considered. For example, the open positions for graduates in big firms are limited because they prefer people with working experience to green hands. While at the same time, the smaller firms are at the stage of beginning which focus on developing potential young leader from interns. As a result, graduates have to choose small firms. The author's failure to investigate other possible explanation for low employment of graduates in big firms renders the conclusion based upon it highly suspect.
【Body1：攻击原文的大因果，不错---感觉你的行文思路是从最重要的错误开始进行攻击？往下看~】

In addition, the author assumes that the opinions of freshmen in a leading law school can reflect all graduates' opinions among other law schools. The argument fails to offer any sufficient evidence to substantiate this crucial assumption. Absent such evidence, it is most likely that graduates in most law schools pay much attention to high salary rather than job satisfaction. After all, we have to admit that people's ideas and thinking always vary with age【宾语从句？】. For that matter, the author's recommendation would amount to poor advice.【survey和作者suggestion之间有个断层，应该补充上】
【Body2：从survey的取样不具备代表性进行，逻辑链有断层】

Furthermore, the author falsely depends on a gratuitous assumption that more benefits and short working hours means high job satisfaction for graduates. Although in general it is the case, the problem is that graduates in Megalopolis might lay more stress on training opportunity, company's culture and working atmosphere. Without ruling out such possibility, the author cannot safely draw any significant conclusion.
【Body3：攻击作者的结论（建议）的前提，不错的思路，但没有发现作者的前提与结论是自相矛盾---“作者对高工资不感兴趣的毕业生，竟然提出用高福利而非工作成就感等精神激励因素进行引诱的拙劣建议”。】

To sum up, the conclusion reached in the argument lacks credibility since the evidence cited in the analysis does not lend strong support to what the author claims. To make the argument more convincing, the author should provide more information concerning survey aimed at graduates in all law graduates in citywide. To better evaluate the argument, we need more concrete evidence that the demand of graduates from big firms and small firms. Otherwise the argument is logically unacceptable.
【End：应该没有问题！但仅仅从结构看：你的开头（113字）和结尾（78）字的比例太大---中间三段469-191=228字】

请回拍：帮我侃侃那些可以精简？https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=772354&page=1&extra=page%3D1#pid1771154938

[ 本帖最后由 norman518 于 2007-12-2 18:35 编辑 ]