Argument3【0806G-Sunbird小组】第6次作业

smilecynthiaUID: 2365304

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."

1.       越来越少的大学毕业生选择到大公司工作,未必是因为大公司的原因,可能是毕生生的择业观发生改变.他们渴望在刚开始工作时就获得老板的重视，很好的机会，更大的空间以及经验。当然,大公司的工作复杂，工资高，内部竞争厉害，很有可能是他们提高了门槛。
2.       调查不具有代表性,大学一年级的学生并没有面临就业压力论断。引用一个在大一学生里的调查作论据不合适。大一学生与毕业生之间的区别是显然易见的：专业知识少、思考问题不成熟、没有生存压力。
3.       论断没有提供学生对所谓工作满意的内容应该包括哪些方面，是不是仅仅是福利激励以及工作时间少，还是还有其它内容，比如工资高、发展机会多、工作环境。如果这样，单纯论断并不必然提高工作满意从而吸引学生。小公司的确有优势是大公司没有的，比如工作环境简单，新人与老板之间的沟通，较早担任重担等等。


In this argument, the arguer concludes that Megalopolis need to offer graduates more benefit and incentives and reduce the number of hours they must work in order to reverse the decline in the number of graduates going to work for these firms. To support this conclusion, he cites a survey of first-year students. This argument suffers from several critical fallacies.
To begin with, this argument is based on an oversimplified analysis of such employment trend. The author attempts to establish a casual relationship between the fact that the decline of graduates went to work for large, corporate firms and the claim that Megalopolis will need to offer graduates more benefits and incentives and reduce the working hours. Even though the 15% decline may be due to the fierce competition among workmates and the heavy pressure, it is equally possible that the graduates’ attitudes towards occupations have changed They are no longer stick to a high salaries job which may limit their developments of talent. Additionally, the author fails to provide any evidence that the 15% decline is due to the graduates’ job satisfaction.
In addition, the evidence the author provides is insufficient to support the conclusion draw from it. The first-year students who lack in the major knowledge are immature mentally. They do not necessarily reflect those of graduating students. Meanwhile, they do not face of finding jobs. Unless it can be shown that the respondents are representative of law school graduates, the conclusion is completely unwarranted.
Finally, the author falsely equates the incentives with job satisfaction. Even though more benefits and incentives and reduction of working hours will attract more graduates, they value the opportunity and working atmosphere. More graduates, who is eagerly desirous to get more experience, long for jobs which would give them individual space and high regard from their boss. Take Google for example, it has become the most popular company which gathers more and more talented youths. In order to provide the employees with the feelings at home, they offer Google café, snack rooms and coolest stop on the tour to the employers.
As it stands, the argument is not well reasoned. To make it logically accepted, the arguer would have to provide more information about the demographic profile of the survey's respondents. To better evaluate the argument, we would need more information that new law school graduates seeking jobs in Megalopolis would find the proposed incentives enticing.