|
ARGUMENT143
Your recent article oncorporate downsizing* in the United States is misleading. The article gives themistaken impression that many competent workers who lost jobs as a result ofdownsizing face serious economic hardship, often for years, before findingother suitable employment. But this impression is contradicted by a recentreport on the United States economy, which found that since 1992 far more jobshave been created than have been eliminated. The report also demonstrates thatmany of those who lost their jobs have found new employment. Two-thirds of thenewly created jobs have been in industries that tend to pay above-averagewages, and the vast majority of these jobs are full-time. *Downsizing is the process inwhich corporations deliberately reduce the number of their employees. In this argument, the arguerfound that the article which said that many competent workers lost jobs due todownsizing is contradicted with a recent report on the United States economy. Thereport demonstrates that many jobs have been created and lots of people have foundnew employment. What's more, most new jobs are full- time and giving above-averagewages than others. However, this argument suffers from several criticalfallacies. First of all, the arguer makes the conclusiononly based on a report which has no data and proof. It is said that since 1992far more jobs have been created than have been eliminated, but the argument didnot give the specific numbers. It may be possible that there were only 10different kinds of jobs and now it has been expanded to 100, whereas theincrease would be much less significant if there had been 3 kinds of jobs andnow there are only 20. It also did not investigate the increasing rate of thepopulation in the United States which may means that there is a larger desireof hunting for a job. Second, the report on the United Stateseconomy says that the majority of people found new employment, but the arguerdid not prove how long they found the new job. Even if those who lost jobreally got a new job in a short time, they may not like that job at all, justfor making living. So, it is possible that it takes years to find a suitableemployment. Also, people who found new employment may not be those who lost jobsas a result of downsizing. They may be the new graduates from universities, or thosewhose family needs help so that the government provides a position for them. While all possibilities will not happen, justlike the speaker thought, it still lacks evidence to prove that the article ismisleading. Although two-thirds of the newly created jobs have been in industries that tend topay above-average wages, not everyone could get the job. The arguer also didnot prove that those who lost jobs have the ability to obtain the opportunity towork in such a condition. The argument should make a survey that what kinds ofpeople are enjoying the above-average wages about the two-thirds of the jobs.In addition, the arguer could do a social survey about the rate of downsizingto see whether the new created job could meet the desire of people or not. In conclusion, the arguer fails to weaken thearticle by pointing out the report. To strengthen the argument, the arguerwould have to provide evidence that those newly created jobs actually give thosepeople who lost jobs chances to make money and the amount is enough to ensureall the people could have been employed. To better evaluate the argument, wewould need more information about what kind of people are getting theabove-average wages and how long did those people find a new career. | 
GO
发表于 2009-12-12 21:42:41
0
转发
