DEEPAK V

ARGUMENT

The argument states that, “In Megapolis, the number of law school graduates who
went to work for large, corporate firms declined by 15% over the last three years,
whereas an increasing number of graduates took jobs at small, generally practice firms.
Even though large firms 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 Megapolis will need to offer
graduates more benefits and incentives and reduce the number of hours they must work. “
This argument seems untenable and illogical.
The first obvious defect is that, the argument only assumes that the graduate
students are choosing smaller firms over the bigger firms because of better job
satisfaction in these smaller firms. The argument however fails to substantiate this
assumption. There may have been more need for fresh graduates in smaller firms or the
larger firms may have adopted some policy, similar to taking only those lawyers who
have experience. Even on such occasions the number of students who took up jobs with
the larger firms may have gone down. The argument does not clear the air about such
assumptions.
The most glaring defect is the argument’s incomplete assertion that smaller law
firms are more likely to provide job satisfaction than larger firms. The argument provides
no proof of any kind to affirm this assertion. The argument ought to have provided some
proof like, the result of a survey conducted among the employees working in such firms
or the result of a study of the job conditions in these firms. Without such accurate
scientific results the argument’s assertions become inconclusive.
The argument presents the result of a survey conducted among the first year
students, studying in a leading law college, who say that job satisfaction is more
important than high salary. However this view isn’t the collective opinion of all the
graduate students. On the contrary, this is a view of a very small section of the students, a
majority of who may not share similar views. Also the survey was conducted only among
the first year students from a leading law college. There may be many other law colleges
around Megapolis and having failed to get the opinion from the students of these colleges
the result of this survey becomes incompletes.
In conclusion, the arguments assumption and assertions are incomplete and
illogical having failed to address the above defects. For example, it might be necessary
for a lawyer to have some experience before joining a corporate firm. The second point
which the argument failed to stress is how the larger, corporate firms fail to provide any
job satisfaction to their employees. Finally, the argument is incomplete in providing
information about the view of the students. For example, a student in his final year of his
law degree may not have the same view as that of a student in his first year. Having failed
to address the above defects the argument becomes untenable.