argument3|0806G-AW小组|第1次作业

mztnlUID: 2441079

第一次写，完全不会，强烈欢迎各位往死里拍！
Argument 3
Words:391
In the editorial above, the writer asserts that more and more law school graduates choose small, general practice firms to work for, instead of large corporate ones becouse of the higher job satisfaction. And he have given his advices on how to get talents for the large firms at the end of this paper. But I do not think the writer has shown us enough evidence to support his idea. So I take leave to doubt to very part of this article.
First of all, the declining number of law school graduates who went to work for large firms and the increasing number in small ones can not attest that the small,general practice firms become more popular. The author only mentioned the declining number is 15%, without showing the specific increasing number in small firms. What’s more, he do not have a comprehensive consideration on the occupational chooses of law school graduates. Actually, the law school graduates can also work for the government, be a freelancer or any others. So, if there is no conplete data of the mployment situation of law school graduates, the basic viewpoints of this report can not be set up.
    Secondly,　even if small companies really become better in law school graduates’ view, the paper did not show us sufficient evidence to support his idea. The author proposed that the reason of this change is job satisfaction, and he told a survey to prove. But he did not tell us anything important about the survey, just like who organized it, when it was hold out and the scope of this investigation. And even we could find any data in this survey. And the most important thing is, the author did not explain what the job satisfaction is, which is the very point concept. So, in this way, take salary to conpare with this vague phrase doesn’t make sence at all.
    Thirdly, based on the two points above, and according to the article itself, it is impossible for the writer to prove out any relevant conclusions. But he did given some proposal on how to retain talents at the end. This is unfounded and of course not logical.
    In sum, if the writer is engaging to convince me, he should provide more Accurate data, details of investigation and appropriate explanation of core concepts such as “job satisfacation”.

EmeraldUID: 2238409

In the editorial above, the writer asserts that more and more law school graduates choose small, general practice firms to work for, instead of large corporate ones becouse of the higher job satisfaction. And he have/has given his advices on how to get talents for the large firms at the end of this paper. But I do not think the writer has shown us enough evidence to support his idea. So I take leave to doubt to very part of this article.总觉得这段写的怪怪的。

First of all, the declining number of law school graduates who went to work for large firms and the increasing number in small ones can not attest that the small,general practice firms become more popular. The author only mentioned the declining number is 15%, without showing the specific increasing number in small firms（这里我觉得应该再写一点，写一点类似于反例的东西）. What’s more, he do not have a comprehensive consideration on the occupational chooses of law school graduates. Actually, the law school graduates can also work for the government, be a freelancer or any others. So, if there is no conplete data of the mployment situation of law school graduates, the basic viewpoints of this report can not be set up（这个反驳的好像有问题，个人认为调查想说明的主要是毕业生去大公司工作的人最近几年少了，是因为公司无法带来满意度。没看明明白）.
    Secondly,　even if small companies really become better in law school graduates’ view, the paper did not show us sufficient evidence to support his idea. The author proposed that the reason of this change is job satisfaction, and he told a survey to prove. But he did not tell us anything important about the survey, just like who organized it, when it was hold out and the scope of this investigation. And even we could find any data in this survey. And the most important thing is, the author did not explain what the job satisfaction is, which is the very point concept. So, in this way, take salary to conpare with this vague phrase doesn’t make sence at all. （我觉得这段最重要的在于job satisfaction的定义。抓住这个去反驳，关于谁组织的，容量是多大，这个好像不是很有力的。我记得一个帖子里面好像专门提到过关于无背景调查的反驳。看看那个能好一点）
    Thirdly, based on the two points above, and according to the article itself, it is impossible for the writer to prove out any relevant conclusions. But he did given some proposal on how to retain talents at the end. This is unfounded and of course not logical.（这段我感觉就是上面两段的总结，然后提出了作者观点没有基础。我觉得这样还不如再找出一点可以反驳的地方反驳一下。因为如果你前面两段写的就不好，那第三段你又根据前两段来写，考官也会认为你的第三段的结论基础不够吧。）
    In sum, if the writer is engaging to convince me, he should provide more Accurate data, details of investigation and appropriate explanation of core concepts such as “job satisfacation”. （这段我比较喜欢把反驳的意见简要写一下，然后提出一下建议）