ARGUMENT143 [REBORN FROM THE ASHES] TASK ONE by 小九

sunflower_irisUID: 2720580

ARGUMENT143

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.
还是写个提纲：
作者提出反对文章的三个理由，第一，从1992年起新工作要比裁掉的工作多得多，第二，大多失去工作的人都找到了新工作，第三，新工作的工厂都愿意付高薪水并且绝大部分提供全职工作。
针对第一个理由提出两点反驳，一，新工作不一定适应失业者，二，新工作不是只为失业者提供，人口增长自然需求工作岗位的增长。
针对第二个理由，被反对文章也没有说失业者就找不到工作，问题是找工作需要多长的时间，作者并没有提供证据表明失业者很快就找到工作。
针对第三个理由，第三点是建立在失业者找到工作的基础上的，就算是找到了工作也只能证明工作以后不会面临经济问题，同样没有证明在找工作期间就没有经济困难的存在。

The author disagrees with a artical which claim that many conpetent workers who lost jobs as a result of downsizing have faced serious long-term economic hardship, due to they can not find other suitable employment. To support the disagreement, the author brought three reasons grounding on a recent report. Firstly, there has been a increase number of new jobs created than eliminated since 1992. Secondly, most of the workers who lost their jobs have found new ones. Finally, most of the new jobs are full-time and the industries tend to pay above-average wages for the workers.

Consider the first reason, on one hand, the author overlooks the possibility that the newly created jobs are not suit for the workers who have been downsized by the corporation. Most of them want to find jobs as the same type of their former ones, or the similar ones. But the newly created jobs perhaps demand some specific technology, skills which different from their familiar field. So the anthor has no evidence demonstrate that the newly created jobs match the technology, skills, experience and interests of the workers who lost jobs.

On the other hand, the newly created jobs are not only for the works who have been downsized. Along with the increase in the number of population, more and more people need jobs, such as the increasing undergraduats. The author refers to an abstract phrase “ far more”, but he doesn’t have an accurate rate to figure out that the newly created jobs meet the need of all the job seekers.

Regarding the second reason, the artical which the author disagrees also claim that many workers could find new jobs, but the corn problem is how long them could find their new jobs. Nether investigation nor illustration have been provided by the author to demonstration that the unemployed find their new jobs in short period.

As for the third reason, this reason will be tenable only if it is under two assumptions to support the anthor’s position. One is the works fit the jobs. The other is there are enough new jobs for all the job seekers. Even if they meet the condions above, it only indicates that the workers will live without economic problems when they find their jobs.But the author also has no evidence of the unemployed citizens’ living standard to prove that they have not been in serious economic hardship during their hunting job period.

To sum up, the author has not effectively refuted the artical’s claim that many competent workers who lost jobs as a result of downsizing face serious long-term economic hardship before finding other suitable employment. He has not provided sufficient evidence or precise date to prove that the newly created jobs are suitable for the workers, they can find theirs new employment quickly, and they have no economic hardship to bear. Therefore, he can not certify that the artical’s claim is misleading.