ARGUMENT143 [REBORN FROM THE ASHES] TASK ONE by miki7cat

miki7catUID??2533330

Argument 143

"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."

正文提纲：
1、更多的新工作不代表被裁员的人能够很容易地找到工作。可能劳动力供大于求，竞争很激烈。而这些被裁员的人本身在他原来的工作上可能就不具备竞争力（否则不会被裁）。
2、失业者虽然大多数找到工作了，但他们的失业状态持续了多长时间？在这段时间里是不是面临严重的经济问题？即使找到了工作，能够根本上解决经济问题吗？
3、被裁员的这些人找的新工作不一定包含在题目中所提到的三分之二的新工作中。


字数：531

This argument claims that the article is misleading because it is a mistaken impression that the workers who lost jobs as a result of downsizing face serious economic hardship, often for years, before finding other suitable employment, because a recent report contradicts the impression. The report provides three reasons, that is, there are more jobs created than eliminated; many of those who lost their jobs have found new employment; Two-thirds of the newly created jobs offer above-average wages and vast majority of these jobs are full-time. But I found they are little relevant and reasonable evidence to support the arguer's claim.

First of all, the report demonstrates that since 1992 far more jobs have been created than have been eliminated. Yet, “far more jobs" does not mean the workers who lost jobs as a result of downsizing could found a new job easily, let alone a suitable job. Perhaps the supply of labor far exceeds the demand for it and the workers who lost jobs must compete for these newly created jobs with other sort of people unemployed like undergraduates. Moreover, a corporation, in common sence, will choice the workers who are more valuable or skillful for the jobs to continue to employ when it deliberately reduce the number of their employees. In other words, the one who lost job because of downsizing are less competitive for his/her original type of work. Even if these workers choice another type of work to apply, there is also no evidence to show that they have any advantage.

Secondly, although many of those who lost their jobs have found new employment, the report does not provide the average time spent before they found new jobs and the state of the economy during their unemployment. Without these evidence, no one will be able to conclude if the workers face serious economic hardship for years before finding other employment. In addition, the new employment is not necessarily a suitable one. It might be a part-time job or offer a low salary, which not bringing a fundamental change in economy.

Thirdly, the arguer should provide the report which demonstrates the ratio of re-employment of laid-off workers and the average wages they are paid, rather than the information about the newly created jobs, because the two are not logically relevant. The workers' new jobs might not be included in the two-thirds of the newly created employment described in the argument or even most of them might not get new jobs. The features of the two-thirds of the newly created jobs, such as tending to pay above-average wages and vast majority of them being full-time, does not reveal the condition of the new jobs that the laid-off workers found, unless the report offers further evidence which shows that a high ratio of the workers who lost jobs have found new jobs included in the two-thirds of the newly created jobs.

In conclusion, the arguer's evidence does not warrant his conclusion. To support his claim, he must provide evidence that the workers could soon find new jobs which are suitable for them after they are fired for the downsizing or that they are not face serious economic hardship during their unemployment.