[a习作temp] Argument143 【Persistence 小组】第二十八次作业 [复制链接]

欣馨之火
UID: 2183210

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 309
注册时间: 2006-2-6
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2007-2-28 19:50:23 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

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.

In this letter, the author concludes that the editor's article on corporate downsizing in the United States gives the mistaken impression that the job-losers have faced serious economic hardship for years before finding new jobs. To support the conclusion, the author cites a recent report on the United States economy which indicated that since 1992 far more jobs have been created than those eliminated and many of those who lost their work have found new employment. The author still gives the evidence that two-thirds of newly jobs in industries most of which are full-time offer above-average wages. Close scrutiny of these report and evidence, however, reveals that none of them lend credible support to the conclusion.

First of all, the conclusion bases on the unsubstantiated report which has not given any statistic data. Without comparison of data, I cannot be convinced with the conclusion.

Even if the report is believable, there are still flaws in the analysis. First, the author fails to justify that the new created jobs is prepared for the old competent workers. Though more jobs have been created since 1992, it is entirely possible that the competent workers who are only familiar with their old jobs cannot meet the demand of the new jobs. Perhaps these new jobs are all in the new fields which required high skills and modern technologies that the workers have not owned, and perhaps these workers are too old to study them. Without taking account to these possibilities, the conclusion is unconvincing.

Second, no evidence support that the new employment which job-losers have found can satisfy the needs of these persons. If the workers who burden with heavy bank loans, they has to find a new job which are probably not better, even worse, than the old one to fulfill their basic living condition. For that matter, the new jobs only give them less than what the old jobs offered and they still face serious economic hardship. Therefore, the author's conclusion that the article is misleading cannot persuade me.

Third, the author unfairly to assume that the high-wage and full-time jobs are all taken by the workers who have lost their jobs. It is entirely possible that these satisfying jobs are taken by the people who graduated from colleges or are well educated, and have nothing to do with the unemployed workers. Thus, the conclusion is questionable.

In sum, this argument relies on scant evidence and analysis which render it unconvincing as is stands. To bolster the conclusion, the author has to give more information about the authenticity of the report and details about the newly jobs and the situation the competent workers.