ARGUMENT143 [REBORN FROM THE ASHES] TASK ONE by番茄斗斗

番茄斗斗UID: 2720914

ARGUMENT143

Your recent article on corporate downsizing* in the United States ismisleading. The article gives the mistaken impression that many competent workers who lost jobs as a result of downsizing face seriouseconomic hardship, often for years, before finding other suitable employment.But this impression is contradicted by a recent report on the United Stateseconomy, 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 payabove-average wages, and the vast majority of these jobs are full-time.

*Downsizing is the process in which corporations deliberately reduce the numberof their employees.


The author of the report tried to convince us how illogical the article appears. He provided the following evidences to support his idea: more jobs being created can cover the unemployment; many job-less people are getting rid of their employment,meanwhile offered an over-average salary. Strong enough as he thinks, however,to me, starting form logical part, the evidences are not flawless.

First of all, the author is totally misunderstanding the main idea of the article, which focuses economic hardship that may encounter before being employed again, rather than after being fired. And these two respectively belong to vastly different concepts. No matter how many jobs being created as a fact that the author put it, there exists such a fact that it takes time to find a new one. And as a fired worker, normallythey are not competitive or qualified enough, before finding a new one, revaluatingor updating themselves is time-exhausting. Thus, in between, economic hardship is unavoidable. And that’s point of the article.

Furthermore, the arguer claims that the more jobs being created can make up for the unemployment. However, he seems to neglect the fact that even though the number of new jobs is larger than that of eliminated ones, without considering the population, this rushing result is not supported. Population grows, like new jobs. They may grow in a different way, however, without being combined together, and being considered as a new evident, which can be called job per person. We cannot wipe out the possibility that what if the growing population makes up for the growing jobs, or worse, exceeds, how can we expect people after being fired can avoid the economic hardship?

Last but not the least, as the author put it, new job given is promising, since it’s full time and salary is above average. However, without a comparison with the older one, it’s irresponsible to say it’s a suitable one. Normally, when being fired, the worker is considerednot not as competitive and qualified as others, thus without revaluating orupdating themselves, which naturally takes times as the article point out, finding a better or equal one immediately is impossible. As a result, with a reduced salary, you may encounter an economic hardship as well. And that’s what the author misses.

All in all, the augment is not mature as it seems. The author is suggested to pay more attention to the point of the article rather than that of his own. In addition, when considering the supporting evidence, the author must provide all the related statistics. Only one supportive proof may easily lead to bias. Meanwhile, when encountering treatment of a new job, a cogent argument is considered never missing comparison with the older one. After all, without comparison, how can you tell the effect and the differences?

番茄斗斗UID: 2720914

额。。对这里的发帖没想法了，编辑状态的时候还都好好的，怎么一发布，有的字就粘在一块了。。。