ARGUMENT143【0706G－cheer作文互改小组】

christine-sevenUID: 2132371

TOPIC: ARGUMENT143 - 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: 383          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2007-3-5

=================================================================================

In this letter to the editor, the writer suggests that the article on corporate downsizing is misleading because it contradicts with a recent report of the United States economy he cited. However, I find this argument is logically flawed in several respects, as discussed below.

First of all, the cited report on the United States economy is not convincing as it stands. The author fails to provide any valuable information about the report. Which institution has conducted this study? What resources do these statistics come from? Unless the author proves that this report is reliable as in itself, he cannot confidently come to the conclusion that the article from the national newspaper is misleading.

Second, given that the report the author offers to substantiate his point of view is reliable in effect, the result of this report also lends little credibility to suggest that the workers lost their jobs as a result of corporate downsizing have found their new employments. It is entirely possible that the created jobs the report mentions are not of the same kind of that eliminated before the downsizing. Or it is equally possible that during the first few years since 1992, the positions are created in a large amount, while the corporate downsizing was just beginning after that till now. If any of these scenarios is true, it makes impossible for the unemployed worker to find suitable positions, not mention to earn above-average wages as the author assumes.

The report also mentions that two-third of the newly created jobs is in industries that tend to pay above-average wages and that vast majority of them are full-time. Here the writer makes an unnecessary assumption that all the newly-created jobs are suitable for the unemployed workers. Perhaps the new positions are all created for administrations rather than the downsized workers. And an additional assumption is that all full-time jobs are high-paying than others. Yet the assumption is unwarranted and therefore fails persuade us to accept his point of view.

In conclusion, the argument to question the article on corporate downsizing in the United States is unconvincing. Detailed information about the cited report on the United States economy is needed to prove its reliability and to further substantiate the several assumptions that the author makes to support his point of view.

showerqiUID: 2301650

In this letter to the editor, the writer suggests that the article on corporate downsizing is misleading because it contradicts with a recent report of the United States economy he cited. However, I find this argument is logically flawed in several respects, as discussed below.

First of all, the cited report on the United States economy is not convincing as it stands. The author fails to provide any valuable information about the report. Which institution has conducted this study? What resources do these statistics come from? Unless the author proves that this report is reliable as in itself, he cannot confidently come to the conclusion that the article from the national newspaper is misleading. 这段说得有些空洞，而且我看有帖子说似乎不要针对这种类似前提的报告进行批驳。批数据模糊应该结合内容里的具体地方会更好一些吧。

Second, given that the report the author offers to substantiate his point of view is reliable in effect, the result of this report also lends little credibility to suggest that the workers lost their jobs as a result of corporate downsizing have found their new employments. It is entirely possible that the created jobs the report mentions are not of the same kind of that eliminated before the downsizing. Or it is equally possible that during the first few years since 1992, the positions are created in a large amount, while the corporate downsizing was just beginning after that till now. If any of these scenarios is true, it makes impossible for the unemployed worker to find suitable positions, not mention to earn above-average wages as the author assumes. 更多的工作并不等于失业的人找到工作，这点涉及太少，我觉得这点是很大的一个错误。

The report also mentions that two-third of the newly created jobs is in industries that tend to pay above-average wages and that vast majority of them are full-time. Here the writer makes an unnecessary assumption that all the newly-created jobs are suitable for the unemployed workers. Perhaps the new positions are all created for administrations rather than the downsized workers. And an additional assumption is that all full-time jobs are high-paying than others. Yet the assumption is unwarranted and therefore fails persuade us to accept his point of view. 这段很不错的

In conclusion, the argument to question the article on corporate downsizing in the United States is unconvincing. Detailed information about the cited report on the United States economy is needed to prove its reliability and to further substantiate the several assumptions that the author makes to support his point of view.