ARGUMENT143 [REBORN FROM THE ASHES] TASK ONE by hugesea

hugeseaUID: 190158

143, 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 thatsince 1992 far more jobs have been created than have been eliminated.The report also demonstrates that many of those who losttheir 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 ." ★★★183
*Downsizing is the process in which corporations deliberately reduce the number of their employees.


Citing a recent economic report, the arguer tries to refute a recent article’s assertion that the nationwide corporate downsizing results in serious and enduring economic hardship for those who have lost their jobs in the process. Well-presented as they are, the evidences given in the argument should be examined from several other angles before we agree with the view of the arguer.

Regarding the arguer’s first evidence—the net number of newlycreated jobs has increased since 1992, the arguer fails to demonstrate if such new jobs are suitable for those workers downsized by corporations. It is entirely possible that most of the newly created jobs involve programming, management,industry design, or other tasks which call for the professional knowledge and skills, whereas most of the job hunting workers would be from other fields and not competent to fill those position.In such a situation, although there are many new jobs, yet the employment outlook of laid-off workers would be still gloomy. Unfortunately, as the arguer doesn’t provide enough evidences that the newly created jobs match the ability of workers downsized by corporations, his or her refutation is unconvincing as it stands.

The argument also demonstrates that many of those laid-off workers have gotten new employment.However, the word “many” is too ambiguous for the arguer to draw any meaningful conclusion. It is entirely possible that thereare indeed many laid-off workers gain new employment, say, three thousand out of thirty thousand, but numerically they are in a minority among the whole downsized workers. If so, how can we conjecture that the employment prospect of laid-offworkers is cheerful and they will not face economic hardship? Moreover, even if downsized workers predominantly get employment again, we might also ask: How easily do they find new jobs? How long does it take for them to get employment again? As we know, the longer they look for new employment, the greater the risk that they face serious economic hardship would be. If a laid-off worker spent a year or even longer seeking a new job, it is hard to say that he or she didn’t suffer from economic difficulties before getting employed again. Thus, unless the arguer provides more conclusive evidences, the statement that many of those laid-off workers have gotten new employment will be of little use in refuting the article’s assertion.

Another element to consider isthis: The fact that two-thirds of new jobs are in industries that tend to payhigh wages does not necessarily guarantee that the laid-off workerswill get such jobs.It is entirely possible that those highly-paidjobs call for initiatives and innovations which are more suitable for the young, not for the experienced laid-off workers. For this reason, we can fully believe that most of the downsized people cannot get so high wages;even some of them have not found any new jobs. So, it is entirelypossible that downsized workers may suffer from economic hardship before getting a new job, and such economic hardship may not even end after getting a job.

In conclusion, a tight argument must include valid evidences and rigorous reasoning. The arguer’s refutation fails to do that.