Argument3[快刀杀鸡]M/D 作业 by wjin3

wjin3UID: 2617582

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."

The author 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. To support the point of view, the author provides the fact that fewer law school students went to work for large, corporate firms and cites results of a survey of first-year students at a leading law school. In my opinion, the author's statement is not well reasoned.

First and foremost, the author's suggest depends on the unfairly assumption that the large, corporate firms of Megalopolis are actually lacking of people so that they need to attract more graduate students. By my common sense, I think there can not be a lot of large, corporate firms demanding a lot of labors. Employment is a bilateral choice made not only by the students but also the firms. The decline by 15 percent of the students going to work for large, corporate firms maybe entirely a result of the decline need of employees by the large, corporate firms rather than the choices of the students.

Secondly, the author cites a survey of law school students to support his view point. However the results of the survey could not be reliable evidence to substantiate the point for three reasons. Firstly, the survey's respondents are all first-year students which are not representative of the graduate students at all. One's opinion and thoughts about career may change a lot from enrollment in college to graduation. It is entirely possible that the graduate students would prefer large companies to work for. Secondly, the survey is made in only one law school, whose students may not represent the graduate students of all the law schools. Finally, the author fail to offer the specific progress of the survey including the questions asked in the survey which may be inductive.

Another flaw weakens the logic of the argument is that both offering more benefits and incentives and reducing the number of hours they must work can not supply the students job satisfaction. These two actions may attract some graduate students for the large, corporate companies to a certain extent, but they cannot remove the problem of lacking of job satisfaction at all if it exists. Without improve on job satisfaction, the excellent graduate students who pursue that won’t come to work for the large, corporate firms.

In sum, the author's conclusion is not well reasoned at all. To make a reasonable conclusion, the author has to make further surveys and analysis to assure the audience that the large, corporate firms are actually need to hire more people while the students are not likely to work for them for lacking of job satisfaction. Granted that, the author should come out with some new methods to increase the job satisfaction of working for large, corporate law companies to resolve the problem.

ajohnaresUID: 2661147

改后