[a习作temp] argument143 【0710G-HIT坚持交作业小组第十四次作业】SavileRow [复制链接]

SavileRow
UID：2284947

高级会员

Rank: 5 Rank: 5

声望: 13
寄托币: 1355
注册时间: 2006-12-19
精华: 0
帖子: 12

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2007-8-14 19:36:20 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

题目：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.
字数：519 用时：00:29:58 日期：2007-8-14 10:57:37

提纲
1 废话
2 有更多的工作并不一定这些工人就能找到工作，更不用说好工作
3 都找到了工作还不一定是什么时候找到的
4 他们不一定能找到那些负高薪的工作
5 废话

The arguer asserts that the impression that many competent workers who lost jobs resulted from downsizing face serious economic hardship and it takes years to find another suitable employment. To support his assertion, he cites the fact that far more jobs have been created than have been eliminated since 1992 and many of the jobless have found new employment. He also points out that two-thirds of new jobs tend to pay above-average wages. Careful examination of these evidences, however, reveals that they lend little credible support to his assertion.

Firstly, the fact that more jobs have been created than have been eliminated is little indication that those jobless workers because of downsizing will certainly find a new job, let alone "suitable employment" mentioned in the original article. After all, there are more factors influencing the second employment for those workers. For example, there might be increasingly more workers flood into this labor market that the total number of jobs this trend requires is way much beyond existent jobs. Or, the requirements for newly-created jobs are stricter than those of these workers' former jobs. If either event is true, these workers would have a tough time to find a new job. Besides, the arguer falsely equates finding a job with finding a suitable job. The standards of a suitable job involve not only the wages, which is essential, but also the social status of the job and so forth. In this sense, finding a job is merely the first step towards a suitable job. In short, without further evidence presented, I find the assumption that these workers who lost their jobs due to downsizing will find a job without a problem because of the abundance of new jobs unjustifiable.

Secondly, even if these workers have found new employment finally as it was stated in the report, it does not indicate that these workers would not face serious economic hardship, because we are not informed how long it took to find a new job after the former one. It is as likely that they do not get hired until several years later. If this is the case, lack of income from work would definitely leave them in economic trouble. Since the report fails to provide such information, I do not think the arguer can validate the assumption.

Finally, even if these workers have found a job, it does not guarantee that their new employment belongs to those that pay above-average wages though the ratio is as high as two thirds. It is entirely possible that they cannot find this kind of employment because of the techniques, ages of themselves and so forth. The relative high-wage jobs might prefer younger workers because they are more dynamic and thus these relative older workers lost their competence. Or, those jobs might set new techniques barriers so those workers are not qualified because of their dated techniques. In short, since the arguer does not account for these possibilities, he cannot assure that these workers' new employment pays them well.

In sum, the assertion is logically flawed and therefore unconvincing as it stands. To support his assertion, the arguer has to provide further evidence confirming that those workers who lost their jobs resulted from downsizing have indeed found new employment. I also need to know the interim between two employments and the average salary level of their new jobs.

[ 本帖最后由 SavileRow 于 2007-8-14 19:39 编辑 ]

回应
0

使用道具举报

ambitionxx
UID：2314730

中级会员

Rank: 4

声望: 3
寄托币: 390
注册时间: 2007-3-16
精华: 0
帖子: 1

沙发

发表于 2007-8-15 18:24:02 |只看该作者

The arguer asserts that the impression that many competent workers who lost jobs resulted from downsizing face serious economic hardship and it takes years to find another suitable employment. To support his assertion, he cites the fact that far more jobs have been created than have been eliminated since 1992 and many of the jobless have found new employment. He also points out that two-thirds of new jobs tend to pay above-average wages. Careful examination of these evidences, however, reveals that they lend little credible support to his assertion.

Firstly, the fact that more jobs have been created than have been eliminated is little indication that those jobless workers because of downsizing（可以删去吗）will certainly find a new job, let alone "suitable employment" mentioned in the original article. After all, there are more factors influencing the second employment for those workers. For example, there might be increasingly more workers flood into this labor market that the total number of jobs this trend requires is way（建议改）much beyond existent jobs. Or, the requirements for newly-created jobs are stricter than those of these workers' former jobs. If either event is true, these workers would have a tough time to find a new job. Besides, the arguer falsely equates finding a job with finding a suitable job. The standards of a suitable job involve not only the wages, which is essential, but also the social status of the job and so forth. In this sense, finding a job is merely the first step towards a suitable job. In short, without further evidence presented, I find the assumption that these workers who lost their jobs due to downsizing will find a job without a problem because of the abundance of new jobs unjustifiable.（分析的好）

Secondly, even if these workers have found new employment finally as it was stated in the report, it does not indicate that these workers would not face serious economic hardship, because we are not informed how long it took to find a new job after the former one. It is as likely that they do not get hired until several years later. If this is the case, lack of income from work would definitely leave them in economic trouble. Since the report fails to provide such information, I do not think the arguer can validate the assumption.

Finally, even if these workers have found a job, it does not guarantee that their new employment belongs to those that pay above-average wages though the ratio is as high as two thirds. It is entirely possible that they cannot find this kind of employment because of the techniques, ages of themselves and so forth. The relative high-wage jobs might prefer younger workers because they are more dynamic and thus these relative older workers lost their competence. Or, those jobs might set new techniques barriers so those workers are not qualified because of their dated techniques. In short, since the arguer does not account for these possibilities, he cannot assure that these workers' new employment pays them well.

In sum, the assertion is logically flawed and therefore unconvincing as it stands. To support his assertion, the arguer has to provide further evidence confirming that those workers who lost their jobs resulted from downsizing have indeed found new employment. I also need to know the interim between two employments and the average salary level of their new jobs.

总体来说写的不错! 思路清晰！

使用道具举报