[a习作temp] ARGUMENT143 [REBORN FROM THE ASHES] TASK ONE by rushtosummer [复制链接]

rushtosummer
UID：2735551

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 605
注册时间: 2009-12-8
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2010-1-15 19:35:51 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

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.

Conclusion: Your recent article on corporate downsizing* in the United States is misleading.
Content of the article: many competent workers who lost jobs as a result of downsizing face serious economic hardship, often for years, before finding other suitable employment.
Reasons of the author: based on a recent report on the U. S. economy
1.
Since 1992 far more jobs have been created than have been eliminated.
2.
Many of those who lost their jobs have found new employment.
3.
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.

Outline of my essay:
·
Give a brief summary of the argument and pose my opinion which disagrees with author.
·
List the reasons refuting the author’s opinions.
1.
I wonder whether the recent report is statistically reliable.
2.
“Since 1992” “far more” jobs have been created than have been eliminated. The comparison may not consistent with the other author’s time scale. Moreover, “far more” is vague in expressing. Could the rate of job-increase in proportion to the rate of population growth? Does the number of jobs indeed meet the need of the American?
3.
Many of those who lost their jobs “have found” “new” employment. The author failed to provide the average time spent of the unemployed in finding another job. He/She also overlooked the living standard of the unemployed citizens during their hunting job period. And new employment doesn’t mean suitable employment which has been mention by the other author.
4.
The target population of the high-pay and new jobs may not be those who lost their job. And the full-time jobs and their above-average wages cannot say anything about the job losers’ living condition before finding another job.
5.
The author mentions little about downsizing which should be a constituent in his/her argument according to his/her conclusion.
·
Make a summary of the logical flaws that I pose.

In this argument, the author thinks the opinion about downsizing posed in a particular article is misleading. He/she doesn’t agree that the competent workers lost of their jobs as a result of downsizing suffer a lot before finding other suitable jobs. The author draws his/her conclusion based on a recent report in U. S. on economy. The report mentions that far more jobs have been created than have been eliminated since 1992 and many of the job losers have found new jobs. Moreover, two-thirds of the newly created jobs have been in industries that tend to pay above-average wages, and the majority of the employments are full-time. Although the author provides quite a lot reasons, his/her inference is not comprehensive and has several logical flaws.

Well, first, all of the author’s reasons depend on a recent report in U. S. on economy. In this report, several important facts are found. But how can we trust this report? The author shows nothing about the statistical reliability of the report or any one of its findings. This is a basic defect of this argument because most of the reasons become valid only if this basic assumption is credible.

Now, if we assume that the report and its findings are statistically reliable and they have proper sample and could represent the general situation of the whole America, there are still several flaws in the author’s reasoning. Although the report finds that since 1992 far more jobs have been created than have been eliminated, the author overlook to clarify whether there keeps such a job increase every year. If this statement is just a trend or generalization of several decades compared to the past, there are possibilities that job decrease cause a lot of people in hardship in certain year such as the Great Depression or economic crisis nowadays. What’s more, the author merely referred to an abstract phrase "far more" instead of precise rate. Could the rate of job-increase in proportion to the rate of population growth? Does the number of jobs indeed meet the need of the American? In addition, the so-called far more jobs would not be only provided for someone who lost jobs; workers who master a special skill and the undergraduates could also share the same opportunity as the unemployed.

Besides, the report also demonstrates that many of those who lost jobs have found new employment. But the author failed to provide the average time spent of the unemployed in finding another job. He/she also overlooked the living standard of the unemployed citizens during their hunting job period. In addition, new job doesn’t mean suitable job. If the unemployed cannot raise his/her family by doing nothing, he/she must take some jobs of low wages, no matter whether the jobs fit.

What’s more, the author also mentions that two-thirds of the newly created jobs have been in industries that tend to pay above-average wages. Although it is an exciting fact, let’s think about why the unemployed lose their jobs and why the corporations downsize these people instead of those who remain. The job losers often don’t have strong competitiveness in job hunting. Some of them lack in professional or technological knowledge; some of them are too old or are not in a good physical condition. So how could these people get the jobs of above-average wages? Well, these high-pay jobs may target in elites who are rich in both knowledge and experience. However, these full-time jobs and their above-average wages have no relationship with the hardship of the unemployed before they find a job.

Last but not least, the author concludes that the article on corporate downsizing in U.S. is misleading. However, he/she mentions little about downsizing which should also be one of his/her contentions. These careless inferences cannot persuade me to trust the author.

In sum, lack of statistical reliability of the report findings, vague expressions about time and increase rate, loss of considerations about the job losers’ reality and deviation from the main point (downsizing) make this argument unconvincing. The author should supplement the facts and elements that he/she loses to make readers trust him/her.