ARGUMENT143 [REBORN FROM THE ASHES] TASK ONE by 木虫虫

木虫虫UID: 2694986

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."




In this letter, the author attempts to convince us that the article on corporate downsizing is misleading.
To justify the conclusion, the arguer points out that there are far more jobs have been created not been eliminated. Moreover, the author unfairly assumes that those who lost their jobs have found a new one, and the two-third companies tend to pay more than average level. However, several logical fallacies seriously weaken the validity of the reasoning, rendering the argument highly suspect.

To begin with, the report on the United States economy can not sufficient to substantiate the assumption that the number of created jobs suits the increasing number of unemployment. From 1992 till today, the population has grown, the time is changing. Maybe the job indeed can not meet the need of unemployed labor force. Or maybe the opportunities are shared out among the undergraduates and the competent workers. Unless the arguer rules out the possibilities and provides the information needed, he cannot reliably conclude that my article on corporate downsizing is misleading.

Further more, the arguer fails to take into account the hard time before the unemployed citizens find a job. It is entirely possible that many of them living standard decreased to a lower level. In addition, the author also fails to provide us the average time spent in the out-of-work people finding another job. It is just as likely that their hunting job period last long time caused their serious finance problems. In fact, in face of such limited evidence, it is fallacious to draw any conclusion at all.

Last but not least, the arguer maybe intentionally neglected the rest one-third new created job, perhaps, the rest one-third companies tend to pay them lower than average wage. Even though the other companies' workers enjoy wages as well as the average standard, it does not lend strong support to the assumption that two-thirds companies tend to take this plan predicate that they have already done. It is possible that some of these industries change their minds finally. Without ruling out the other possibility, the arguer can not reasonably reach his conclusion.

In summary, the argument is unacceptable as it stand. To better evaluate this argument, the author must proof before finding other suitable employment, the competent workers who lost jobs are living in a well condition as they used to. It is the core of social problem that corporate downsizing brings. Without carefully examining these possible changes, the arguer is simply shooting in the dark and jeopardizing all the efforts to reach his conclusion.