Argument143 三月分考的次多的题目.大家帮忙看看吧,必earnest回拍.大家加油呀!

iverUID：198348

Argument143  三月分考的次多的题目.大家帮忙看看吧,必earnest回拍.大家加油呀!
天道酬勤
------摘要------
作者：寄托家园作文版普通用户     共用时间：30分2秒     472 words
从2005年2月20日22时1分到2005年2月20日22时30分
------题目------
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.
------正文------
The arguer asserts that the recent article on corporate downsizing in the United Stated is misleading. To support his conclusion, the arguer cites a recent report in the United States economy in order to convince us. While the statement seems well organized and sound at first galance, without ruling out the alternatives, the arguer's conclusion is groundless.

The report says that since 1992, there rare far more jobs have been created than have been eliminated. However, the report does not give the specific nubmer of the jobs created and eliminated. Moreover, the report fails to give the total number of population in United States. Perhaps there are more and more people since 1992; therefore, although there are also more jobs, which have been created, it is entirely possilbe that the speed of increasing of the nubmer of population is more quick than than of jobs. Thus, there may also many people have not jobs as the article reported in the national newspaper.

Secondly, perhaps many of those who lost their jobs have found new employment is right as claimed in the report, Perhaps those find new employment after a long period because the report has given evidence that how long they find new employment after being fires. In addition, the report gives not evidence how long those workers can do the jobs after those are empolyed again. There is also no evidence t o show the salarly and the work contain in the new employer. Therefore, perhaps those workers, who loses jobs, find new jobs, but they can just get a little money and have to work for longer time.

Finally, although the report demonstrate that two-thirds of the newly created jobs have been in industried that tend to pay wages over average, and the vast majority of these new jobs are full-time. However, these statistics is far from convincing. It fails to support that the United States are facing corporate downsizing. Perhaps workers must work for more hours that that in the past. What's more, the report does metion the average wages, it is entirely possible that the average wages is far less than that in the pasy. So, Although they can get above-average wages, the economic situation is also dereasing. And the report gives no evidence that the other one-third of the newly created jobs is good, it is actually possible that the wages is much less than that in the past. It also make no sense that the vast majority of these jobs are full-time.

In the finally analysis, the arguer is too aribitary to assert that the article in the national newspaper is misleading. Without ruling out the alternatives and further analyse of the report and the economic of the United States, it cannot convince us and the arguer should give more evidence to support his conclusion.

iverUID：198348

只好自己up一下了，大家帮忙看看呀！
必回

lawrence1984UID：178326

论证思路不清晰，罗嗦。
个人意见，仅供参考。
加油！

xin320UID：165608

The arguer asserts that the recent article on corporate downsizing in the United Stated is misleading. To support his conclusion, the arguer cites a recent report in the United States economy in order to convince us. While the statement seems well organized and sound at first galance, without ruling out the alternatives, the arguer's conclusion is groundless.开头还不错

The report says that since 1992, there rare far more jobs have been created than have been eliminated. However, the report does not give the specific nubmer of the jobs created and eliminated.反驳的无力，给具体数字有关么？ Moreover, the report fails to give the total number of population in United States. Perhaps there are more and more people since 1992; therefore, although there are also more jobs, 太多more了which have been created, it is entirely possilbe that the speed of increasing of the nubmer of population is more第5个more quick than than of jobs. Thus, there may also many people have not jobs as the article reported in the national newspaper.没有反驳到点上，不太透彻吧，应该说明的是job岗位增加，没考虑就业人数的增加情况是无效的

Secondly, perhaps many of those who lost their jobs have found new employment is right as claimed in the report, Perhaps those find new employment after a long period because the report has given evidence that how long they find new employment after being firesed. In addition, the report gives not evidence how long those workers can do the jobs after those are empolyed again. There is also no evidence t o show the salarly and the work contain in the new employer. Therefore, perhaps those workers, who loses jobs, find new jobs, but they can just get a little money and have to work for longer time.反驳偏了，我认为应该强调的是，arguer的conclusion建立在一个假设上——所有失业工人都是因为裁员产生的，而实际不是如此。并且其比例不知道。时间没有提的确是个好的驳斥点，我当时没想到

Finally, although the report demonstrate that two-thirds of the newly created jobs have been in industried that tend to pay wages over average, and the vast majority of these new jobs are full-time. However, these statistics is far from convincing. It fails to support that the United States are facing corporate downsizing. Perhaps workers must work for more hours that that in the past. What's more, the report does metion the average wages, it is entirely possible that the average wages is far less than that in the pasy. So, Although they can get above-average wages, the economic situation is also dereasing. And the report gives no evidence that the other one-third of the newly created jobs is good, it is actually possible that the wages is much less than that in the past. It also make no sense that the vast majority of these jobs are full-time.假设多了点，完全可以说没有evidence证明这些工作对失业工人是 available的

In the finally analysis, the arguer is too aribitary to assert that the article in the national newspaper is misleading. Without ruling out the alternatives and further analyse of the report and the economic of the United States, it cannot convince us and the arguer should give more evidence to support his conclusion.
总体这3个点是没有问题的，就是反驳的方向我个人认为有点偏了。反驳中假设不要太多，否则就缺乏说服力了，最好多就事论事。说原文没有提出什么evidence是比较稳妥的。建议中不妥之处多包涵

iverUID：198348

谢谢各位.
1 However, the report does not give the specific nubmer of the jobs created and eliminated.反驳的无力，给具体数字有关么？//这句写的的确有问题,起不到什么作用.
2 Moreover, the report fails to give the total number of population in United States. Perhaps there are more and more people since 1992; therefore, although there are also more jobs, 太多more了//可以把more and more-----increasing.
3 more第5个more quick //more quick 是不对的, 应该是quicker
4 b1确实是想表达工作岗位增加,但是如果工人数目增加的更快,仍会有大量人失业,当时没想到如何表达: Adimttedly, the arguer takes into accout the job, which have been created. However, no evdience justify that  jobs created can meet the need of the poeple.
5 假设确实多了点,要改正
谢谢