ARGUMENT143 [REBORN FROM THE ASHES] TASK ONE by 都说了不是又八

都说了不是又八UID: 2728357

废话少说了。


来一篇A吧。
By all measures, employment has been, and always would be regarded as one of the top concerns of the society. As an inevitable topic, the public are entitled to know the truth. After all, unemployment at a social scale could lead to recessions, crimes, and if not well controlled, riots. However, critics cast the notion that the unemployment issue is "misleading", on the basis of some statistics which are not relevant enough. The critics may potentially mask the truth.


What is first to mention, the most important figure on indicating the employment situation of the States is absent throughout the comment--current rate of employment. Had the author raised up the very several simple percentages, the controversies would be ceased. But the rate of employment of recent fiscal years are missing, and the variance of employment nationwide may very likely to be misanalized. Instead, the author raised up a vague notion that "far more job have been created than eliminated since 1992". Without mentioning how much the "far more" is, without describing that is 1992 a disastrous number for the United States or not, and without giving information about the name of the research agency on such investigation, the statistics is totally unable to prove anything on the issue.


Also, arguing that many out-of-jobs have found new employments, the author tries to contribute to the not-given-employment-rate. Nevertheless, in what form could the report convey the information? One possible way is that the report picked out several examples, Tom, Dick, Stanley or anybody else, describing that they are enjoying a new job and a freshman salary. Anyway, America is a country with 5% of the 6 billion population on the earth, and merely several employment stories mean nothing both to the society and to the individuals. Another way to illustrate the employment soar is rendering figures, and the same questions echo: how many people are on the job and how many are not? Part-time or full-time? Etc.


Meanwhile, 2/3 of the new jobs offer above-average wages, and this means other questions: what about the jobs "eliminated"? If the jobs created are flooding over the society, as the author claims, there is only one reason that so many above-averages rush out: the society is suffering from a disruptive recession, highly-paid jobs collapse in number and the average is dragged far behind. In this way, the statistics the author applied, sharply contradict the claim of the author that "the crisis is gone and we are enjoying an optimistic employment situation". Even if the new jobs are satisfying in the payment, there is no prove that the new work forces get higher wages, better working conditions, and so on. Thus, the assertion that the ecosystem of employment ameliorates is to be doubted.


The argument on the employment could be clear if the crucial statistics, rather than the ones offered by the critics, are listed in the article. Before the optimistic conclusions are reached, the author should have rendered more convincing evidences. After all, employment issue could not be simply regarded in an optimistic way.


呃，文章写得……很没有礼貌……
第一遍写完刚423个字儿。然后又补上去了一些。
没有限时间。尽力在写一篇文章，表达一些观点，而不是简单地回答一道文科大题。反正是一气呵成的，没有查这查那，也没有长时间卡壳不动笔。立题时间也不长。很多地方在模仿AWintro范文的感觉。希望没有画虎成犬。
但是输出速度太慢了= =
见过草版一篇I打了八九百字儿，觉得嗯……果然来这里需要好好练输出速度的呀。
感觉写得还可以，大伙儿有兴趣的下手重拍。谢谢。

sindyttUID: 2661721

By all measures, employment has been, and always would be regarded as one of the top concerns of the society. As an inevitable topic, the public are entitled to know the truth. After all, unemployment at a social scale could lead to recessions, crimes, and if not well controlled, riots. 前面几句如果是issue的话不错。A的话就不必要了，和全文有关系有限，更和写作目的无关。分析下原文作者的逻辑会比较好。 However, critics cast the notion that the unemployment issue is "misleading", on the basis of some statistics which are not relevant enough. The critics may potentially mask the truth.

What is first to mention, the most important figure on indicating the employment situation of the States is absent throughout the comment--current rate of employment. Had the author raised up the very several simple percentages, the controversies would be ceased. But the rate of employment of recent fiscal years are missing, and the variance of employment nationwide may very likely to be misanalized.  Instead, the author raised up a vague notion that "far more job have been created than eliminated since 1992". Without mentioning how much the "far more" is, without describing that is 1992 a disastrous number for the United States or not（虽然我懂你意思，但是最好分析一下）, and without giving information about the name of the research agency on such investigation, the statistics is totally unable to prove anything on the issue. 主要说了数据模糊这个问题。但是，最好可以有总的topic sentence。


Also, arguing that many out-of-jobs have found new employments, the author tries to contribute to the not-given-employment-rate. Nevertheless, in what form could the report convey the information? One possible way is that the report picked out several examples, Tom, Dick, Stanley or anybody else, describing that they are enjoying a new job and a freshman salary. Anyway, America is a country with 5% of the 6 billion population on the earth, and merely several employment stories mean nothing both to the society and to the individuals.（设想很有趣，但是原文材料中没出现，如何作为原文的逻辑漏洞。你不能设想出一个逻辑漏洞攻击之。好比说，结论：你是不对的。Why？因为如果你犯了错误A，你不对，所以你就是不对了。） Another way to illustrate the employment soar is rendering figures, and the same questions echo: how many people are on the job and how many are not? Part-time or full-time? Etc.（有问题，好比，虽然你没用方法A（故没有错误A），那你就一定就用了方法B，正如前文所言，方法B也是犯错误的。这段等于是说了一堆和原文无关的，然后重复了第一段的意思。有点问题。）


Meanwhile, 2/3 of the new jobs offer above-average wages, and this means other questions: what about the jobs "eliminated"? If the jobs created are flooding over the society, as the author claims, there is only one reason that so many above-averages rush out: the society is suffering from a disruptive recession, highly-paid jobs collapse in number and the average is dragged far behind.（这段分析很不错，三分之二的是above，但也许少了很多高薪职位，导致average下降。用来论证论据不代表经济形势好转比较对路） In this way, the statistics the author applied, sharply contradict the claim of the author that "the crisis is gone and we are enjoying an optimistic employment situation".你用引号，问题是作者有这么claim嘛？where？Even if the new jobs are satisfying in the payment, there is no prove that the new work forces get higher wages, better working conditions, and so on. Thus, the assertion that the ecosystem of employment ameliorates is to be doubted.前面分析了一个论据的问题，突然来了个这么个大结论。。


The argument on the employment could be clear if the crucial statistics, rather than the ones offered by the critics, are listed in the article. Before the optimistic conclusions are reached, the author should have rendered more convincing evidences. After all, employment issue could not be simply regarded in an optimistic way.

原文作者的结论是，unemployment不是因为downsizing faces the economic hardships.其argument 力图以有关经济形势的报告来说明这一主题。我们则力图剖析作者的论证方法的有效性和论据的可靠性，以此削弱作者的论述。从论据的角度讲，report是否可靠。问题有统计是否权威，数据是否过于模糊。从论证上讲，作者是想说通过报告说明经济，就业形势好，所以不是因为downsizing faces economic hardship导致的unemployment。论据到结论中间有的推理的问题。很多人Found new jobs 不代表没有更多的人被裁员。新的工作岗位多，不代表经济形势好，公司。因为劳动供给可能增加更多。新创造的Fulltime 的 industry的工作就一定代表经济形势好了。你可以说它是无理假设或者随便。等等。

问题：
首先先搞清作者的目的和逻辑，再去攻击他。而不是自己发挥想象力。这是Argument。不要说原材料没有的问题。）
其次，尽管可以鄙视文字模板，但是请不要鄙视必要的结构，不是写散文。
最后，通篇，从文章上看，你只谈了statics的问题。单薄了。
加油！作者文字实力还是很强的。也许觉得我这种常规的意见并不上档次。请一笑而过！呵呵。

plukaUID: 2721764

楼上的意见很中肯。
作者的文字实在是很厉害，读的时候非常流畅，佩服~但argument沉湎于文字写起来“爽”，有时恐怕会忽略真正要考察的东西。这篇里面有很多自己发挥的成分，并且气势强硬。这种气势非常好，先声夺人。可惜的是在批判性思维方面浅了一些，气势过后回头来想就不是那个味儿了。
argument里面的report和survey当然可以作为批判点，但大多数情况下不会是主要的。纠结于数字等不是上佳之策，尤其是全篇的几个论点都是从不同方面纠结于数字。
如果能在逻辑和批判上下更多功夫，加上很好的气势，结果一定很不错的。

另，期待楼主的issue。
再另，浪客行俺没看完，不记得又八是哪个了= =|||

都说了不是又八UID: 2728357

2# sindytt

您好，刚刚看到这里的回复，十分感谢～只是关于开头段的写法，我也觉得不是很确定，但是看过范文之后觉得这样写貌似不会有巨大的硬伤……（主要就是连续看了很多篇A之后留下阴影了……）

总之非常谢谢。

都说了不是又八UID: 2728357

3# pluka

呵呵，才看到，抱歉怠慢了～

的确，思维的差距太大，需要好生练习。多谢关注……

另，又八……就是一开始和武藏一起出现的当了小白脸的全篇出现的路人一般的杯具角色……