In this article, the author recommends the large, corporate firms of Megalopolis to offer graduates more benefits and incentives and reduce the number of hours they must work. To support this recommendation, the author points out that, since the law school graduates experience greater job satisfaction, they prefer to work for the smaller firms even though large firms usually offer much higher salaries. He also cites a survey regarding first-year students at a leading law school that indicates, for them, job satisfaction was more important than earning a high salary. Close scrutiny of each of these supporting evidences, however, reveals that none of them lends credible support to the recommendation.
First and foremost, the argument rests on the unsubstantiated assumption that the students preference to work for small, general practice firms is responsible for the 15% decline in the number of students who went to work for the large, corporate firms over the last three years. However, the writer of the argument fails to offer any evidence that this is the case. It is entirely possible that other factors caused the decline. Perhaps, in the last three years less job positions were available for the students. Since the article fails to account for this and other possible scenarios, the article’s author cannot make any sound recommendation for the large, corporate firms of Megalopolis to offer more benefits and incentives for the graduates.
Secondly, the term “job satisfaction” is ambiguous, in my opinion. One must admit that everyone defines job satisfaction distinctively; for instance, some students are satisfied with their job if they receive a high salary. On the other hand, some others define job satisfaction as having less workload or friendly colleagues and milieu. If so, this further undermines the author’s recommendation in prescribing any course of action to recompense the 15% decline due to vocational preferences of graduates.
As for the survey that the article cites, it is unreasonable to draw any conclusion about the entire law school graduates in the city of Megalopolis based on the statistics about only the first-years students. Depending on the number of first-years students and their job preferences, it is undeniably possible that the first-years students were not representative of the law school graduates. If this is the case, the recommendation might amount to poor advice for the large, corporate firms of Megalopolis.
In sum, the argument is logically flawed and therefore unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it, the author must either account for other possible reasons for the 15% decline in the number of students who preferred to work for large, corporate firms, or supply persuasive evidence that the first-years student were representative of the total law school graduates. To better assess the recommendation, I need to know whether all law school students define “job satisfaction” as less working hours.
In this
article
, the
author
recommends the
large
,
corporate
firms
of Megalopolis to
offer
graduates
more benefits and incentives and
reduce
the
number
of hours they
must
work
. To support this
recommendation
, the
author
points out that, since the
law
school
graduates
experience greater
job
satisfaction
, they prefer to
work
for the smaller
firms
even though
large
firms
usually
offer
much higher salaries. He
also
cites a survey regarding
first
-year
students
at a leading
law
school
that indicates, for them,
job
satisfaction
was more
important
than earning a high salary.
Close scrutiny
of each of these supporting evidences,
however
, reveals that none of them lends credible support to the recommendation.
First
and foremost, the argument rests on the unsubstantiated assumption that the
students
preference to
work
for
small
, general practice
firms
is responsible for the 15%
decline
in the
number
of
students
who went to
work
for the
large
,
corporate
firms
over the last three years.
However
, the writer of the argument fails to
offer
any evidence that this is the case. It is
entirely
possible
that
other
factors caused the
decline
. Perhaps, in the last three years less
job
positions were available for the
students
. Since the
article
fails to account for this and
other
possible
scenarios, the
article’s
author
cannot
make
any sound
recommendation
for the
large
,
corporate
firms
of Megalopolis to
offer
more benefits and incentives for the graduates.
Secondly
, the term
“job
satisfaction”
is ambiguous, in my opinion. One
must
admit that everyone defines
job
satisfaction
distinctively
;
for instance
,
some
students
are satisfied
with their
job
if they receive a high salary. On the
other
hand,
some
others define
job
satisfaction
as having less workload or friendly colleagues and milieu. If
so
, this
further
undermines the
author’s
recommendation
in prescribing any course of action to recompense the 15%
decline
due to vocational preferences of graduates.
As for the survey that the
article
cites, it is unreasonable to draw any conclusion about the entire
law
school
graduates
in the city of Megalopolis based on the statistics about
only
the
first
-years
students
. Depending on the
number
of
first
-years
students
and their
job
preferences, it is
undeniably
possible
that the
first
-years
students
were not representative of the
law
school
graduates
. If this is the case, the
recommendation
might amount to poor advice for the
large
,
corporate
firms
of Megalopolis.
In sum, the argument is
logically
flawed and
therefore
unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it, the
author
must
either account for
other
possible
reasons for the 15%
decline
in the
number
of
students
who preferred to
work
for
large
,
corporate
firms
, or supply persuasive evidence that the
first
-years
student
were representative of the total
law
school
graduates
. To better assess the
recommendation
, I need to know whether all
law
school
students
define
“job
satisfaction”
as less working hours.