Argument 3: Hiring new law school graduates
The author asserts such an idea: The large, corporate law offices in Megalopolis attract less law school graduates because they provide insufficient incentives besides high salary, which is concerned more important by the graduates. So they should offer more benefits and reduce the number of hours their employee must work. To justify the conclusion the author cites a survey at one leading law school. However, I think there are many flaws in the author's logic reasoning. My contentions with the author mainly lies in the following five aspects:
First, the 15% decline in the number of law school graduates who work in the large firms can't provide evidence for the author's conclusion. In fact, it's likely that such a decline originates from the recent bloom of the small law offices in Megalopolis, or the fact that many good graduates who have sufficient qualities to work in large firms choose to work in other cities. It's also very likely that the graduates choose to work in the small firms only because the competition is more fierce and it becomes harder to enter large firms.
Second, the freshmen's opinion can't stand for the senior students, and even themselves after 3 years. Actually, most graduates put income on top when they make career decisions. Economic pressure as an independent adult forces them to do so. The wonderful life as a decent man allures them to do so.
Third, the author can't convince me that most law school graduates in Megalopolis consider the job satisfaction more important on a survey at only one school. We all know clearly that such a small sample can't stand for the whole, especially when there is little evidence to prove the sample's typicality.
Fourth, even assuming that the survey is reliable and appropriate for the reasoning, I can't infer from it that people choose small firms on the consideration of job satisfaction. The survey is of the law school students. How could they stand for the employee in the small firms? They haven't any experience of working there!
Fifth, the author confuses his readers in the very notion of job satisfaction. During reading his argument it appears to me that job satisfaction means less working hours and more benefits. But that's not true, at least from my viewpoint. The job satisfaction originates from a balance between salary and the leisure and benefits. It should involve respect from the people around in the firm as well. On the basis of such a definition, I don't think the author can make his conclusion on his ground of argument.
In sum, the argument is logically flawed and therefore unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it the author need to make more surveys on the employee in both large and small firms and the graduates in several typical law schools, think carefully and comprehensively, and then modify his proposals more precisely correct.