ARGUMENT143 [REBORN FROM THE ASHES] TASK ONE by Fancy

fancywwUID: 2583671

欢迎大家拍砖，特别是小组成员们，有拍必回哈！

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 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."




The speaker quotes a recent report on the United States economy to contradicts the editor's view about the influence of downsizing on laid-off competent workers. However, none of the information from the report can directly and convincingly refutes the editor's view. The irrelevant evidence renders the speaker's point unconvincing

First of all, the fact that more jobs have been created than been eliminated does not means that these new jobs are created for workers who lost jobs in downsizing. It is possible that job seekers are also increasing year by year, and even in a more fast speed. There might be larger shortage in job market, and the competition is becoming more fierce. So the competent workers can find it harder to find jobs as well paid as old ones. Without considering the possible increasing of unemployed people, the speaker cannot draw the conclusion that more created jobs leads to better conditions for laid-out workers in downsizing.

Secondly, although the report mentioned that many of those who lost their jobs have found new employment, it omits important information about their incoming from new jobs. Without such details, it is highly possible that these unemployed are forced to take some poorly-paid jobs for a living. As a result, they certainly make less than before, and face serious economic hardship for years, before they find other "suitable jobs", which can offer them equally or more wages than former jobs. If this is true, then it just accords with the editor's view and weaken the speaker's point.

Thirdly, the fact that two-thirds of the newly created jobs are well-paid and the majority of them are full-time does not indicate the laid-off workers can weather their economic crisis. The speaker misses several possibilities between the two facts, which could cause them completely irrelevant. For instance, it is possible that the total quantity of newly created jobs is far smaller than the numbers of laid-off workers and newly appeared job-seekers. So two-thirds can be a real insignificant amount. For another example, the speaker does not mention the new jobs' wages are how much higher than average. Because we can see that the laid-off workers are all quite competent in their former companies, they may make much more than the average wage line. So these new jobs still cannot help them go through economic hardship. Even if the amount of newly created jobs are large enough, and their wages are high above-average, we do not know that whether these new jobs are just suitable for those workers or not.

In conclusion, the speaker casts doubts on the editor's view with vague and rough information from the report. Without further details, the speaker's point is unfounded and unconvincing.