ARGUMENT143 [REBORN FROM THE ASHES] TASK ONE by qxn_1987

qxn_1987UID: 2610437

In this letter the editor of a national paper disagrees with a certain article claim that many competent workers who lost jobs as a result of downsizing face serious economic hardship, often for years, before finding other suitable employment. To support this disagreement, the editor cites the following findings about a recent report: (1) far more jobs have been created than have been eliminated; (2)many of those who lost their jobs have found new employment; (3) two thirds of the newly created jobs have been in industries that tend to pay above-average wages, and vast majority of these jobs are full-time. Close scrutiny of each of these findings, however, reveals that none of them lend credible supports to the editor’s claim.

First, although more jobs have been created, it does not necessarily indicate that those jobs meet the demand of downsized job seekers, or those jobs were taken by downsized job seekers. For example, perhaps those jobs involve cleaning, food serving, and other jobs requiring a low level of skill and experience. At the same time, those competent downsized job seekers who are highly educated want to find some decent jobs demand some skills and experience. Even though those created jobs meet the demand of downsized job seekers, it also does not necessarily indicate those jobs were taken by them. Perhaps those jobs were taken by other high-educated graduates or more skilled artificers instead of downsized job seekers. In short, lacking evidence that those created jobs meet the demand of downsized job seekers and those jobs were taken by them, the editor cannnot convincingly refute the article’s claim.

Second, those who lost their old jobs but have found new employment is not necessary the people who were downsized by coporate. Perhaps those people lost their jobs because, instead of downsized by company, their original companies have gone bankrupt, or perhaps they gave up their job voluntarily. Even though we assume that those have found new employment were downsized job seekers, the editor’s disagreement is still unconvincing, while the editor just use the term “many” instead of providing the percentage of downsized employees who have found new jobs. Maybe “many” just amouts to a very small part of total downsized employees, if so, it accomplished nothing toward bolstering the editor’s disagreement with the article’s claim.

Third, although two thirds of newly created jobs tend to pay above-average wages and most of these jobs are full-time, it is entirly possible that these jobs don’t meet the demand of downsized job seekers, to the contary, these people still have no job, or take jobs below-average wages(one third of total new jobs). Even though, two thirds of newly created jobs are taken by downsized employees, it does not rule out the possibility that they have suffered serious economic hardship before finding other suitable employment.

In sum, the editor’s disagreement is logically flawed in several respects. To more effectively refute the claim the editor should provide more information about the research, such as the percentage of downsized employees who have found new jobs, if created jobs meet the demand of downsized job seekers, or if it were them, downsized job seekers, have taken the jobs.