[未归类] argument143 [复制链接]

littleh
UID：2362796

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 345
注册时间: 2007-7-13
精华: 0
帖子: 1

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2007-8-12 11:20:55 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

ARGU143

143"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."

In this argument, the arguer concludes that the recent article on corporate downsizing in the United States is misleading. To support this point, the arguer points out that 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. In addition, the arguer cites the result of a recent report which found that far more jobs have been created than have been eliminated , two-thirds of which are high page jobs, and that many of those who lost their jobs have found new employment. At first glance, it seems somewhat sound, but further reflection tell me that it suffers from several fallacies.

To begin with, the arguer mistaken what he extracts from the article for the feeling of the public. Since the article is unavailable to us, we have good reason to doubt that whether the article meant to what the arguer describes as ' many competent workers who lost jobs as a result of downsizing face serious economic hardship, often for years, before finding other suitable employment'. It is totally possible he just extract this by fixing on some insignificant word in this article, whose real center is on the opposite of it. Therefore, we can not simply take what the arguer describes as a fact.

Further, what about the recent report is too short. Is the report made by some authoritative organization? Is the sample large enough and representative to describe the situation in whole United States? Or is it just some local survey? As all of them are unknown, the basis on which the argument stands is unreliable, let alone its reasoning.

Assumed that the arguer's understanding of the article is true and the report is believable, the result of the report does not contradict powerfully to the conclusion drawn in the article. Firstly, the arguer does not take the following situation into account: the number of net increased jobs can not catch up with the population increased. In this situation, though more jobs have been created than have been eliminated, the rate of unemployment is aggrandizing. Secondly, the job-loser's finding new employment does not rule out the possibility of hard job-finding experience. They may have suffered poverty for years before the new job is accessible. These two cases both remove the so-called conflict between the article and the report.

In addition, the fact that two-thirds of the newly created jobs are with above-average wages contributes nothing to the reasoning of the arguer. It is just the good respond that bringing about untold limitations of job applicant. Common sense tells us that the more the empolyer pays, the more the employee requires. Are all the job losers provided with competence? If so, they should not have the former jobs. Whether the newly jobs are good or bad have nothing with the job loser's suffering with serious economic hardship before finding new employment.

To sum up, the evidence in this argument does not seamlessly illustrate the conclusion. To convince the readers that recent article has truly made a mistake, more information about the report and the article should be offered

回应
0

使用道具举报

shrek8081
UID：2339983

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 285
注册时间: 2007-5-18
精华: 0
帖子: 2

沙发

发表于 2007-8-13 00:33:58 |只看该作者

In this argument, the arguer concludes that the recent article on corporate downsizing in the United States is misleading. To support this point, the arguer points out that 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. In addition, the arguer cites the result of a recent report which found that far more jobs have been created than have been eliminated , two-thirds of which are high page jobs, and that many of those who lost their jobs have found new employment. At first glance, it seems somewhat sound, but further reflection tell me that it suffers from several fallacies.

To begin with, the arguer mistaken what he extracts from the article for the feeling of the public. Since the article is unavailable to us, we have good reason to doubt that whether the article meant to what the arguer describes as ' many competent workers who lost jobs as a result of downsizing face serious economic hardship, often for years, before finding other suitable employment'. It is totally possible he just extract this by fixing on some insignificant word in this article, whose real center is on the opposite of it. Therefore, we can not simply take what the arguer describes as a fact.

Further, what about the recent report is too short. Is the report made by some authoritative organization? Is the sample large enough and representative to describe the situation in whole United States? Or is it just some local survey? As all of them are unknown, the basis on which the argument stands is unreliable, let alone its reasoning.

Assumed that the arguer's understanding of the article is true and the report is believable, the result of the report does not contradict powerfully to the conclusion drawn in the article. Firstly, the arguer does not take the following situation into account: the number of net increased jobs can not catch up with the population increased. In this situation, though more jobs have been created than have been eliminated, the rate of unemployment is aggrandizing. Secondly, the job-loser's finding new employment does not rule out the possibility of hard job-finding experience. They may have suffered poverty for years before the new job is accessible. These two cases both remove the so-called conflict between the article and the report.

In addition, the fact that two-thirds of the newly created jobs are with above-average wages contributes nothing to the reasoning of the arguer. It is just the good respond that bringing about untold limitations of job applicant. Common sense tells us that the more the empolyer pays, the more the employee requires. Are all the job losers provided with competence? If so, they should not have the former jobs. Whether the newly jobs are good or bad have nothing with the job loser's suffering with serious economic hardship before finding new employment.

To sum up, the evidence in this argument does not seamlessly illustrate the conclusion. To convince the readers that recent article has truly made a mistake, more information about the report and the article should be offered（最后结尾似乎有点仓促）

总的来说文章结构清晰，批驳顺序也很合理！（以前没改过作文，不知道怎么改，变色工具不会用，请多多包涵啊！）

使用道具举报