TOPIC：ARGUMENT 143 - The following appeared as a letter to the editor of a national newspaper.
"Your recent article on corporate downsizing* in the United States is misleading. The article gives the mistaken impression that many competent workers who lost jobs as a result of downsizing face serious economic hardship, often for years, before finding other suitable employment. But this impression is contradicted by a recent report on the United States economy, which found that since 1992 far more jobs have been created than have been eliminated. The report also demonstrates that many of those who lost their jobs have found new employment. Two-thirds of the newly created jobs have been in industries that tend to pay above-average wages, and the vast majority of these jobs are full-time."
*Downsizing is the process in which corporations deliberately reduce the number of their employees.
WORDS：285 TIME：0:30:00 DATE：2006-2-15
The argument seems logical at first glance, but not thoroughly well-reasoned, with several facts which are questionable. Firstly, the reliability and generalization of the report on the United States economy is open to doubt. In addition, more jobs created do not mean less competent workers who lost jobs because of downsizing.
In the first place, there is not sufficient information about the report. If the report is limited to a few people, or limited to certain city which have a relative flourishing economy, or limited to certain fields such as internet in which there are more jobs created. Considering these factors, the result of the report is unreliable and unapplied to most people who have lost their jobs.
In the second place, assumed there are more jobs have been created than have been eliminated in most fields, which does mean there less people without jobs. It is quite possible that the rise in population far outweigh the increase of jobs. Especially for the competent workers, maybe most of jobs created are unapplied for them who ask higher salary and better work conditions. Nonetheless, most of the work created may have bad work conditions. Moreover, the competent workers may have not the skills and knowledge which most new jobs ask for.
Finally, the report does not provide information that how long they spend time on find new employment. If most of them spend several years on finding new job, before they obtain the new wages, they still face serious economic hardship. Maybe for find new job, they have pay much money on learning new knowledge and skills which make their economic condition worse.
In conclusion, the argument is not cogent as the author excepted. With several flaws mentioned above, the author could not convince us that the article on corporate downsizing is misleadin作者: nand 时间: 2006-2-15 21:50:31
The argument seems logical at first glance, but actually it isnot thoroughly well-reasoned, with several facts which are questionable. Firstly, the reliability and generalization of the report on the United States economy is open to doubt. In addition, more jobs arecreated do not mean less number ofcompetent workers who lost jobs because of downsizing.
In the first place, there is not sufficient information about the report. If the report is limited to a few people, or limited to a certain city which have a relative flourishing economy, or limited to certain fields such as internet in which there are more jobs created. Considering these factors, the result of the report is unreliable and unapplied to most people who have lost their jobs.我觉得这段应该再说具体一些，如果样本有限定，那么不一定能推广到文中所指的人群，所以不可靠。这样更加清楚有说服力
In the second place, assumed there are more jobs have been created than thosehave been eliminated in most fields, which does not mean there are less people without jobs. It is quite possible that the rise in population of workforce 这样在逻辑上更加严谨 isfar outweigh the increase of jobs. Especially for the competent workers, maybe most of the jobs created are unapplied for-->unattracted to them who will probablyask for higher salary and better work conditions. Nonetheless, most of the work created may have bad work conditions. Moreover, the competent workers may have not the skills and knowledge which most new jobs ask for.
Finally, the report does not provide information that how long they spend time on find new employment. If most of them spend several years on finding new job, before they obtain the new wages, they still face serious economic hardship. Maybe for find new job-->Maybe in hoping of finding a new job, they have pay-->invesgated much money on learning new knowledge and skills which make their economic condition evenworse.
In conclusion, the argument is not cogent as the author excepted. With several flaws mentioned above, the author could not convince us that the article on corporate downsizing is misleadin