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.”

This argument claims that large, corporate firms of Megalopolis should offer law graduates more benefits and incentives as well as decrease their working hours. He has supported his argument by citing the facts that in the last three years, more law school graduates went to work for smaller firms. According to the author, graduates feel more job satisfaction in smaller firms that they do in larger firms even though larger firms can offer much higher salaries. The author has also cited a survey of first year law students at a law school. According to the survey, most of the students give more importance to job satisfaction instead of high salary. However, all of this evidence does not provide support to the argument.

The first evidence cited by the author that the number of law school graduates working in larger law firms has decreased in the last three years does not mean that law school graduates did not want to work in larger law firms. There might be several other reasons for that. It is possible that in the past three years, the business of smaller firms has increased as people were inclined to ask smaller law firms for help because smaller firms offered service with lower price. Due to this, the revenue of larger firms might have decreased and they must not be recruiting new employees in large numbers. Hence, the author cannot conclude the argument due to this reason.

The second evidence as per the author is that the graduates in Metropolis are taking jobs in smaller firms for job satisfaction and salary is not very important for them. However, the author has not provided any data, which will establish a connection between job satisfaction and benefits, incentives and the reduction of work hours. The author failed to think about the fact that job satisfaction mainly results from the sense of job achievements that depends on how well a person finishes his job and accordingly acquires the respect from his co-workers. There is no doubt that job satisfaction is also partly related to benefits, incentives, and reduction of work hours. However, this reason does not convince that the suggestion of the author is reasonable.

The author has also tried to support his suggestion with the results of a survey that shows the viewpoint of the first-year students in a leading law school. However, this survey does not represent the viewpoint of all the graduates in Megalopolis. It is highly possible that the students from other ordinary law schools pay more attention to higher salary. They might be ready to put in more work hours in their jobs to gain experience, popularity, and importance. They might need to have more money to support their life and family when they go to work. Anyways every person has a different meaning of job satisfaction. Moreover, the viewpoints are different when one is a student and it changes when one gets into professional life.

The author has assumed many things and he could not support his suggestion with convincing evidence. The author should have conducted a citywide survey to explain the viewpoint of graduates in Megalopolis towards the choice of a job. In addition, he should have collected the other benefits of working in smaller firms.