ARGUMENT143 [REBORN FROM THE ASHES] TASK ONE by cicialice

cicialiceUID: 2594855

TOPIC: 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.
WORDS: 558
TIME: 01:00:00
DATE: 2009-11-17 22:19:03

Grounding on a recent report on the United States economy, synthesizing several discoveries in the report, the author accordingly suggests that the recent article on this national newspaper about corporate downsizing in the United States is misleading. However, close scrutiny of the evidence reveals that it lends little credible substantial clause for the author's assertion.

In the first place, the author unfairly assumes that the recent report reflects the US economic situation reliably and accurately. However, this article provides no information about the detailed background or process about this investigation, so that we cannot estimate the article on this national newspaper based on the information on the report. What's more, this report registers some statistics changing since 1992. We may not ignore a possibility that the situation of job market turned good in recent years, and it actually would also have taken those job hunters who lost jobs during the downsizing period several years to find a new suitable job.

Even assuming that this report is believable, we cannot accordingly draw a conclusion that the article on the newspaper is misleading based on the following reasons. Firstly, the mere fact that since 1992 far more jobs have been created than have been eliminated is scant evidence of an optimistic situation of those job-losers' job hunting. Obviously, there are more and more people going out of school and fighting for a good job, so not all of these new jobs are provided for job-losers. They have to compete with young job-hunters, perhaps even with more advanced knowledge and skills. Therefore, finding one job seems more difficult than ever before for these job-losers, let alone a suitable job. In addition, the article does not tell us what kind of job oppotunities are offered to those who lost jobs. Perhaps most capable job-losers are good at those high-technological work which needs experience and clever mind, yet new jobs are more suitable for those skillful workers with dexterity. Even if more jobs have been created, it does not change the job-losers difficulty of finding a proper job.

Secondly, the word "many" which the report mentions cannot demonstrate job-losers' situation effectively. Since the report fails to tell us the proportion and number of job-losers who have found new employment, or some detailed information about what kind of jobs they found, it cannot convince us that a job-loser's finding a new job is not difficult and time-consuming.

Thirdly, although the report points out that two-thirds of the newly created jobs are provided by industries tending to pay above-average wages, it is entirely possible that wages these industries pay for job-losers are below average, or even, terribly low. Moreover, it is also possible that most job-losers can only find job in the extra one-third of industries; and therefore, their wages are low and perhaps they are doing work that is entirely not suitable for them.

To sum up, this argument relies on a doubtful report on the US economy which includes some uncertain statistic analysis that makes it unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster the conclusion, the author must provide clear evidence that the report is reliable and accurate and can show job-losers' situation objectively. To better assess this argument, we need more information about the details of this investigation in order to judge the report and estimate the article on the national newspaper fairly.