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 larger, corporate firms declined by 15% over the last three years, whereas an increasing num

The editorial of this argument recommends that the large, corporate firms of Megalopolis should offer law graduates more benefits and incentives and reducing the work hours in order to attract law graduates into their organizations. To support this claim the editorial points out the following facts regarding the law graduates and the current status in their enrollment onto large corporate firms: (1) there is a 15% decline of the number of law graduates working for the large corporate firms for the successive three years, (2) law graduates prioritize job satisfaction than salary and find greater job satisfaction at smaller firms and hence prefer working for the smaller firms in spite of the higher salaries offered by the large corporate firms. Close scrutiny of those facts however reveals that none of them lend credible support to this recommendation and this argument is therefore unpersuasive as it stands.

To begin with, a 15% decline of the number of law graduates working for the large corporate firms for the successive three years doesn’t necessarily indicate that this decline results primarily from the lack of interest of law graduates working for the large firms. However, it is entirely possible that during the recent years all large firms are fully occupied with their employees and there are fewer job openings in those corporations for a new employee to enroll. If this is the case, the 15% decline results from the lack of availability of slots in these large firms not from the lack of interests of law graduates working for them. In that case offering law graduates more benefits and incentives and reducing the work hours have nothing to do with the inciting their interests towards the large firms.

Secondly, even if assuming that job satisfaction is the first priority for the law graduates, yet it provides no credible support that law graduates prefer smaller firms because of better job satisfaction in these firms. Perhaps, the large corporate firms want employees who have a prior job experience which makes large corporate firms unattractive to fresh law graduates who have no prior job experience and instead they prefer smaller firms which require no job experience. If this is the case, an increasing number of law graduates in smaller firms results from the lack of competence of the law graduates which precludes them from enrolling onto large corporate firms not for the better job satisfaction provided by the smaller firms. In that case, the large firms might have equal or better job satisfactory environment than the smaller firms and offering the law graduates a better incentives & benefits will serve no purpose for those firms.

The argument also assumes unfairly that offering better incentives and benefits and reducing the working hours is the only way to promote job satisfaction among the employees and doing so will help the large firms to attract large numbers of law graduates. In fact, there could be other underlying factors which constitute a better a job satisfaction. Perhaps, young law graduates face tremendous interference on their works from their respective senior employees in large firms which makes them unhappy. In that case offering a lucrative incentive and reducing working hours is not a viable mean of promoting job satisfaction.

For additional support the editorial points out the result of a survey which demonstrates a great predilection of the first year law students at a leading law school to job satisfaction. It is not clear, however, the scope and validity of that survey. For example, the sample may not have been representative of all law schools, asking only those students who are from a rich family, which may have swayed students toward job satisfaction. However, it is also not clear that the preferences of those students will match to the preferences of the law graduates who are seeking for a job. It is also possible that the preferences of those students might change when they graduate. Unless the survey is fully representative, valid, and reliable, it cannot be used to effectively back the editorial’s argument.

In sum, the argument is logically flawed and therefore unconvincing as it stands. To bolster it the editorial might provide clearer evidence that the recent decline in large firms results from the lack of interests among the law graduates who prefer job satisfaction and there is no other possible reason for this decline. The editorial should incorporate more samples by surveying the students from the other law schools to ensure that sample effectively represents preference of the law graduates. To better evaluate the argument it would show clearly that there is no other possible way to change the situation in large firms and only offering the graduates more benefits and incentives and reduce the number of hours will make the law students who prefer job satisfaction taking jobs in large firms in greater numbers.