Please critique my argument essay

[Sophie99]

Please critique my argument essay.
Thanks in advance
Sophie

“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.”

In the above argument, it has been suggested that the large, corporate firms of Megalopolis should offer more benefits and incentives and reduce the number of working hours of the law graduates to attract more of them into the firms. This suggestion will not be effective for the reasons mentioned below.
Firstly, even though a 15% decrease in the number of law school graduates joining the large, corporate firms is given it is over a period of 3 years and so the decrease per year is only 5%, which is a very small amount to be assumed to be a declining trend. The number of graduate students employed in small practice firms is on the rise; neither the base from which the increase is calculated nor the rate is mentioned. This leads to ambiguity in establishing that an increasing number of law graduates are shifting from corporate firms towards small, general practice firms.
The most plausible reason for the above mentioned shift, based on the argument is that the employees experience greater job satisfaction at smaller firms. Correlating the size of the company to job satisfaction is not applicable as it depends on a lot of other factors, such as the interests, goal and aim of the employee, his working style, entrepreneurship skills and ability and other such factors. Thus assuming that working in a smaller firm leads to increased job satisfaction and establishing that as the cause for the trend mentioned in the above argument is incorrect.
On the basis of a survey conducted on the 1st year law students in a leading law school is used as the last point to prove the argument. But this is inconsistent as the details pertaining to the survey such as the timeframe in which it was carried out, the organisation carrying out the survey are absent. Thus the credibility of the survey cannot be ascertained. The integrity of the concerned students is also a matter of concern as they might adopt stances to appear morally correct in someone else’s perception and the actual path that they may follow may deviate from their earlier mentioned stance.
Therefore due to lack of comprehensive data, this argument fails. Instead using data from a credible survey on the 3rd year graduate students and relating this with their actual field of work can help prove or disprove this argument to a large extent. Thus increasing the salary and reducing the working hours of the employees is not sufficient to increase the number of law graduates working in the large corporate firms.

[Kitosdad]

Please critique my argument essay.
Thanks in advance
Sophie

“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/OPTING/ 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.”

In the above argument, it has been suggested that the large, corporate firms of Megalopolis should offer more benefits and incentives and reduce the number of working hours of the law graduates to attract more of them into the firms. This suggestion will not be effective for the reasons mentioned below.
Firstly, even though a 15% decrease in the number of law school graduates joining the large, corporate firms is given(,) it is over a period of 3 years(,) and so the decrease per year is only 5%, which is a very small amount to be assumed to be a declining trend. The number of graduate students employed in small practice firms is on the rise; neither the base from which the increase is calculated nor the rate is mentioned. This leads to ambiguity in establishing that an increasing number of law graduates are shifting from corporate firms towards small, general practice firms.
The most plausible reason for the above mentioned shift, based on the argument is that the employees experience greater job satisfaction at smaller firms. Correlating the size of the company to job satisfaction is not applicable(,) as it depends on a lot of other factors, such as the interests, goals and aim of the employee, his working style, entrepreneurship skills and ability(,) and other such factors. Thus(,) assuming that working in a smaller firm leads to increased job satisfaction(,) then establishing that as the cause for the trend mentioned in the above argument is incorrect.
The basis of a survey conducted on the 1st year law students in a leading law school(,) is used as the last point to prove the argument(,) but this is inconsistent as the details pertaining to the survey(,) such as the time-frame in which it was carried out, the organisation carrying out the survey are absent. Thus the credibility of the survey cannot be ascertained. The integrity of the concerned students is also a matter of concern(,) as they might adopt stances to appear morally correct in someone else’s perception(,) and the actual path that they may follow may deviate from their earlier mentioned stance.
Therefore due to the lack of comprehensive data, this argument fails. Instead using data from a credible survey on the 3rd year graduate students(,) and relating this with their actual field of work(,) can help prove or disprove this argument to a large extent. Thus increasing the salary and reducing the working hours of the employees is not sufficient to increase the number of law graduates working in the large corporate firms.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
A well-founded argument Sophie.

Kitos. 9/10
_________________
Keep it simple ... Keep it interesting.

[Sophie99]

Thanks a lot!

Regards
Sophie