Argument3【0806G-Sunbird小组】第6次作业

edith_sleepingUID: 2368536

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."
:) 时间： 1 小时
:) 字数：429
In this argument, the arguer assert that large, corporate firms of Megalopolis will need to offer graduates more benefits and incentives and reduce the number of hours they must work. To justify the assertion, the author notes that the decrease of law school graduates who went to work for large and corporate firms, and the increase of graduates took jobs at small, general practice firm over the last three years. The assertion is also based on the survey that accepted by first-year students at a leading law school. I find this argument has some logical defects.

First, by relying on the survey to support the conclusion the argument depend on the assumption that the respondents to the survey are the representatives of all the law school graduates. Yet the respondents are the first-years students at a leading law school, while ignoring those students who are graduates at normal law school and ignoring these first-years is unstable in job preference. Perhaps these students may change their job preference as they have too many things to learn and experience in the next three years; or perhaps, the other law school students are longing for the high salary and honors in the large, corporate firms of Megalopolis. As the survey respondents cannot represent for all the law school students, the argument fail to convince us the trend that graduates would like to take jobs at small, general practice firm to the large, corporate firms.

Second, the argument cannot rely on the fact that 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. It’s possible that in the last three years, those large, corporate had limited need to hire law school graduates, while small, general had great need. If so, the fact does not indicate the law school graduates’ job preference, but the situation of the job market.

Finally, the arguer falsely equates the job satisfaction with the benefits, incentives and less work hours. And at the same time the arguer also point that earning high salary which is an essential part of benefits, is less important. Moreover, to some extent less work hours means less salary. All of these is conflict that we cannot persuade to believe the arguer’s assertion.

In sum, the argument is logically flawed and therefore unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it, the arguer must provide clear evidence-a survey which reliably shows the law school graduates’ job preferences, and a survey which could correctly show the job market’s situation.

lewis0409220UID: 2238498

In this argument, the arguer assert that large, corporate firms of Megalopolis will need to offer graduates more benefits and incentives and reduce the number of hours they must work. To justify the assertion, the author notes (that) the decrease of law school graduates who went to work for large and corporate firms, and the increase of graduates took jobs at small, general practice firms over the last three years. The assertion is also based on the survey that accepted by first-year students at a leading law school. I find this argument has some logical defects.

First, by relying on the survey to support the conclusion the argument depends on the assumption that the respondents to the survey are the representatives of all the law school graduates. Yet the respondents are the first-years students at a leading law school, while ignoring those students who are graduates at normal law school and ignoring these first-years is unstable in job preference. Perhaps these students may change their job preference as they have too many things to learn and experience in the next three years; or perhaps, the other law school students are longing for the high salary and honors in the large, corporate firms of Megalopolis.(两个例子最好换下顺序和前面对应) As the survey respondents cannot represent for all the law school students, the argument fail to convince us the trend that graduates would like to take jobs at small, general practice firms to the large, corporate firms.

Second, the argument cannot rely on the fact that 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. It’s possible that in the last three years, those large, corporate had limited need to hire law school graduates, while small, general had great need. If so, the fact does not indicate the law school graduates’ job preference, but the situation of the job market.

Finally, the arguer falsely equates the job satisfaction with the benefits, incentives and less work hours. And at the same time the arguer also points that earning high salary which is an essential part of benefits, is less important. Moreover, to some extent less work hours means less salary. All of these is conflict that we cannot persuade to believe the arguer’s assertion.(这一段说服力差一点,可以再写丰富些)

In sum, the argument is logically flawed and therefore unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it, the arguer must provide clear evidence-a survey which reliably shows the law school graduates’ job preferences, and a survey which could correctly show the job market’s situation.
条理很清楚,写得很好,主谓同形,单复数的错误多了点.

[ 本帖最后由 lewis0409220 于 2007-12-3 22:21 编辑 ]