Argument143 G-89 作业，有拍必回

petto_yUID: 176198

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 the letter the author concludes that the article of a national newspaper give the mistaken impression that many competent workers who lost jobs because of downsizing face serious economic hardship for years before finding other suitable employment. To support this conclusion, the author cited three facts from the report on the United States economy. Through a close scrutiny of these facts, however, I find that none of them lend convincing support to the conclusion.

First of all, the author lists the fact that many of those who lost their jobs have found new employment. But he does not mention how long it took them to find the job. It is entirely possible that before getting new jobs, they had seeking for several years and suffered economic hardship for a long time. Also, it is not refer to the percentage of those who get the job. Without such information, I cannot rule out the situation that the workers who get the job only occupy a small percentage. Therefore, before the author gives more substantial evidence, I cannot draw the same conclusion as the letter claims.

Secondly, the fact that since 1992 far more jobs have been created than have been eliminated is little indication that workers have more chance to get jobs. However, large possibility is that with the population increasing, the number of the number of jobs available could not meet the demand of unemployed workers. To convincing me that the job opportunities are sufficient for the workers lost job in downsizing, the author should give more details. Otherwise, he cannot conclude that those who lost jobs had not faced serious hardship.

Finally, the article assume people get satisfied jobs because two-third of the newly created jobs have been in industries that tend to pay above-average wages, and most of them are full-time. Nevertheless, he did not supply the number or the percentage about how many workers who lost jobs in downsizing get satisfied jobs. Yet the letter contain no evidence in this aspect, it is equally possible that most of these workers were in the other one-third, getting unsatisfied jobs. Therefore, without making out other possibilities, the author cannot convince me on this point.

In conclusion, the letter failed to give sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that those who lost job as a result of downsizing did not face serious economic hardship. If he wants to persuade me, he should give more information about how many workers get satisfied jobs. To better assess the conclusion, I would also need to know it took how many years for them to seek the jobs.

petto_yUID: 176198

自己顶一下

polymathUID: 179557

一会帮你改！:)

babykoalaUID: 2122952

hoho, I'll submit my advice later:):):;)

petto_yUID: 176198

谢谢大家帮我改了，我等得好辛苦呀
如有需要我也很愿意帮大家改的，谢了

mvpzhuangUID: 205051

偶来啦！谢谢你帮我改的。晚点等我写完一休就来帮你改哈。

aurora1206UID: 181614

In the letter the author concludes that the article of a national newspaper give the mistaken impression that many competent workers who lost jobs because of downsizing face serious economic hardship for years before finding other suitable employment. To support this conclusion, the author cited three facts from the report on the United States economy. Through a close scrutiny of these facts, however, I find that none of them lend convincing support to the conclusion.

First of all, the author lists （感觉用这个词不太好，楼主觉得呢？） the fact that many of those who lost their jobs have found new employment. But he does not mention how long it took them to find the job. It is entirely possible that before getting new jobs, they had seeking sought for several years and suffered economic hardship for a long time. Also, it is(does) not refer to the percentage of those who get the(感觉用a好一点，the会不会让人有特指的感觉) job. Without such information, I cannot rule out the situation that the workers who get the job only occupy a small percentage. Therefore, before the author gives more substantial evidence, I cannot draw the same conclusion as the letter claims.

Secondly, the fact that since 1992 far more jobs have been created than have been eliminated is little indication that workers have more chance to get jobs. However, large possibility is that with the population increasing, the number of (the number of多余) jobs available could not meet the demand of unemployed workers. To convincing(convince) me that the job opportunities are sufficient for the workers lost job(jobs) in downsizing, the author should give more details. Otherwise, he cannot conclude that those who lost jobs had not faced serious hardship.

Finally, the article assume  people get satisfied jobs because two-third of the newly created jobs have been in industries that tend to pay above-average wages, and most of them are full-time. Nevertheless, he did not supply the number or the percentage about (没见过这么用，楼主确定这种用法对么) how many workers who lost jobs in downsizing get satisfied jobs. Yet the letter contain no evidence in this aspect(感觉比较别扭), it is equally possible that most of these workers were in the other one-third, getting unsatisfied jobs. Therefore, without making out other possibilities, the author cannot convince me on this point.

In conclusion, the letter failed to give sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that those who lost job as a result of downsizing did not face serious economic hardship. If he wants to persuade me, he should give more information about how many workers get satisfied jobs. To better assess the conclusion, I would also need to know it took how many years for them to seek(get,这里应该是找到工作) the jobs.


恩，总的来说，逻辑错误都指出来了，思路不错。
呵呵，我没写过argu，学习来了，拍得不好楼主见谅阿。。。
可能因为还没怎么接触argu吧，有些句子觉得感觉不太对，但也不知道怎么改，等偶多看看再来改了。恩。。。楼主写的不错，只是改了一点点小的语法错误，唉，可怜偶语法不好，改的时候都胆战心惊的去查字典。。。汗阿。。。
偶先去和argu亲密接触一下，明天来交作业，期待战友的砖头：）

[ Last edited by aurora1206 on 2005-8-6 at 21:18 ]

mvpzhuangUID: 205051

In the letter the author concludes that the article of a national newspaper give the mistaken impression that many competent workers who lost jobs because of downsizing face serious economic hardship for years before finding other suitable employment. To support this conclusion, the author cited three facts from the report on the United States economy.（个人觉得如果写了具体有几个最好就列以下，如果不列最好不要写明有几个，不然有点论证不清的感觉。） Through a close scrutiny of these facts, however, I find that none of them lend convincing support to the conclusion.

First of all, the author lists the fact that many of those who lost their jobs have found new employment. But he does not mention how long it took them to find the job. It is entirely possible that before getting new jobs, they had seeking for several years and suffered economic hardship for a long time.（这里再加上说92年至今已经很长时间，会更有说服力） Also, it is not refer （referring）to the percentage of those who get the job. Without such information, I cannot rule out the situation that the workers who get the job only occupy a small percentage. Therefore, before the author gives more substantial evidence, I cannot draw the same conclusion as the letter claims.(不错，但感觉不太深入)

Secondly, the fact that since 1992 far more jobs have been created than have been eliminated is little indication that workers have more chance to get jobs.（这句好，我当初想表达结果没想出来。） However,（这里不要用转折词！上下没有转折。） large possibility is that with the population increasing, the number of the number of jobs available could not meet the demand of unemployed workers. To convincing me that the job opportunities are sufficient for the workers lost job in downsizing, the author should give more details. Otherwise, he cannot conclude that those who lost jobs had not faced serious hardship.

Finally, the article assume （assumes）people get satisfied jobs because two-third of the newly created jobs have been in industries that tend to pay above-average wages, and most of them are full-time. Nevertheless, he did not supply the number or the percentage about how many workers who lost jobs in downsizing get satisfied jobs. Yet the letter contain no evidence in this aspect, it is equally possible that most of these workers were in the other one-third, getting unsatisfied jobs. (高工资实际上是unskilled worker的屏障，而这些人又是最容易失业的)  Therefore, without making out other possibilities, the author cannot convince me on this point.

In conclusion, the letter failed to give sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that those who lost job as a result of downsizing did not face serious economic hardship. If he wants to persuade me, he should give more information about how many workers get satisfied jobs. To better assess the conclusion, I would also need to know it took how many years for them to seek the jobs.


总体不错的，论点都抓得很准。只是感觉每个论证都不太充分，用了过多的魔板（呵呵，其实我也是阿。）其实感觉搂住应该写得更好的。建议写完后先用word改改小过错阿。
加油加油！:victory:

babykoalaUID: 2122952

hi, I'm back!:)

To convincing me that the job opportunities are sufficient for the workers lost job in downsizing, the author should give more details.

the expression of this sentence is sort of subjective, would you like to use us instead of me, that sounds better to me.

The essay is a good one as a whole.