ARGUMENT143 [REBORN FROM THE ASHES] TASK ONE by splendidsun

splendidsunUID: 2723757

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.
在这个小组的第一篇Argue想记录一下自己的全过程：
首先从gter拿到题目，按照XDF黄皮书把题目补充了完整
自己的翻译如下：
下面这段是一位读者给国家级报纸的编辑所写的信：
“在你最近一篇关于美国企业裁员的文章是有些误导性的。这篇文章给人一个错误的印象就是许多由于裁员而失去工作的却有工作能力的工人在找到其他雇主前需要面对一段经济上的困难，通常是几年。但是这一印象与最近一个关于美国经济的报告是矛盾的。这一报告发现自从1992年以来新增的职位远多于消失的。这项报告还证明了许多失业者已经找到了新的工作。三分之二的新创造出的职位在那些趋于付给职员高于平均工资的薪水的企业，并且绝大部分工作都是全职。”

跟XDF的翻译对比了一下，发现自己有一个地方理解是有问题的，就是在as a result of downsizing face serious economic hardship，我理解的是工人会面对经济困难，而书上写的是企业面对。但是我分析句型发现face的主语应该是workers，否则该句子就会缺少谓语动词。所以就先认为自己是对的，什么时候问一下草版：）（没想到在看题目中就会发现一个问题，开始兴奋了！！）

Argue点：
1.
虽然自从1992年以来新增的职位多于消失的职位，但是职位对于职员的要求不同，新增的职位不一定适合失业者。可能由于个人的能力限制不能胜任新增职位。
2.
造成失业的原因可能包括上美国整体经济状况不好使得企业不得不裁员（客观），但是也有可能是因为失业者本身（主观）工作态度上的问题，比如不努力工作，造成其失业，而这样的失业者往往不愿意或不能很快的找到下一份工作。并且一些薪水，工作条件等因素会影响失业者的选择。
3.
由报告中给出的的数据并不能够充分证明许多失业者能够很快找到新的工作。（不知道这个算不算是攻击事实？）
4.
虽然新增工作的企业趋于给员工高于平均工资的薪水，但是并不代表企业真的会给。这是由工作性质及员工的工作情况而定的。
5.
报告与报纸中的情况并不矛盾：同样都有失业情况，虽然经济报告发现在客观上有职位，但并不能说明失业者就会去找。
6.
全职工作不一定是失业者想要的

文章结构:
1.失业原因：主观；客观à有职位不代表失业者愿意找
2.即使愿意找，由于新增职位和消失职位对于员工的要求不同，失业者不一定适合
3.虽然新增职位的企业愿意提供高于平均工资的薪水，但需要依据工作性质工作情况而定。
4. 全职工作不一定是失业者想要的
故由上述几点可以说明虽然新增职位多，但并不能充分证明许多失业者能够很快找到新的工作，也就推翻了许多失业者能够很快找到工作的观点。

正文如下：
In this argument, the author concludes that many people who lost their jobs have found new employment within a short period of time. To support his conclusion, the author cites the result of a recent report on the United States economy. He points out that there were far more new-created positions than the eliminated ones since 1992. However, these alone were not sufficient to support his recommendation. This argument suffers from several logical flaws.
Firstly, serious economic hardship that corporations have to face is not the only reason for employees’ losing jobs. The attitude and the performances of the employees also account for making the decisions that whether to downsize him/her or not. Corporations often fire the staffs that are not hard-working or creative at all. As these staffs might not like working, they would not try their best to find other job after losing it.
Secondly, even though person who lost jobs deeply want to get new positions as soon as possible, the jobs that created may not be appropriate for them. Corporations need more people that could make great contributions to their development. Good background of management and business or good training on engineering technology could make a candidate stand out. While the job losers always knew little about that specific knowledge, they only can do some basic work. Thus these people may not fit in the position of corporations created.

Thirdly, the report points out that the two-thirds of the industries offered newly created jobs tended to pay above average-wages. However, different industry has different average wages. The report did not offer us some accurate number. It is possible that the average wages of some industries were too low that nobody wants to work for them. Even their average wages were in a relative high level, the wage of each individual might not the same according to their different positions. The industry did not give a promise that each employee would have a pay above average-wages. They would like to pay a high wage for engineers, while giving low pays for the dustmen. So the job losers need to take this case into consideration when he/she find new employment.
Also, full-time job that most industries created may not the first choice of job losers. To make ends meet, the job loser would rather take several part-time jobs than one full-time job. In this way, they could gain more money for their family. Thus, full-time jobs may not meet the need of job loser when lots of corporations suffer from economic hardship.
As for the several flaws that have stated above, the author fails to substantiate his claim.
Even far more jobs have been created than have been eliminated since 1992, it is not sufficient to conclude that the job loser could find new employment quickly. Finding a job is a bidirectional-choice process. Not only the wages, time, work environment and some other external factors are mainly considered by job losers. Also the constitution of job losers would be very important for corporations to make decisions.
草稿第一遍就先贴上来~还没有修改过~~第一次在这里献丑了~~~
欢迎大家拍砖~~
我也会自己好好修改的！