ARGUMENT143 [REBORN FROM THE ASHES] TASK ONE by Dooda 欢迎大家修改

doodaUID: 2712643

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 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."
Downsizing is the process in which corporations deliberately reduce the
number of their employees.

Response:

  The writer of the letter concerns that the article which presents “Many competent workers who lost their jobs as a result of the downsizing face serious economic hardship” is misleading. He would like to trust the other report issued by the United States economy, which gives a contradicted information. He cites data and content as grounds of argument from the second report to critique the first one. Although the second report illustrate a opposite environment to the first one at the first glance, it’s improper to negate the former after you heard the latter.

  First and easiest to understand that we can not tell which report reflects the real picture of the employment environment. The two report are related to the same topic about the unemployment problem and give out two opposite impression. We can not weight out which report is telling the truth just by the sequence we read them or by the publisher’s repute.

  The writer of the letter quoted “since 1992 far more jobs have been created than have been eliminated” from report on the United States economy. Given this static is real, it can not as the evidence of the unemployment rate has been lowed down. There are at least two situations in which although the quantity of the new job has been raised, works who lost their jobs still stay out of work. One situation is high technology jobs increasing but those who worked in heavy industry like automobile and steel still hard find new assignments. The other is the newly created opportunity will be consumed by those new force which just graduated form school.

  The first report indicates that workers who lost their jos faced serious economic hardship. The writer of the letter cited from the second report” The report also demonstrates that many of those who lost their jobs have found new employment” to argue. The second report did not indicate how long the get re-occupied after those works lost their job previously. Although a worker finally find a new job after many years of idleness, how can his economic hardship be straightened up in a short term? It will take long time to pay off debt borrowed during their employment. Also, the second report mentioned “Many of” instead of “Most of” or “all of ” workers who lost their job had found new one. Those who still stay in out of work could be facing an even more economic hardship in the future time.

  Finally, “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.” are not cogent evidences of economic improvements of unemployed population. Although wages were raised in some of jobs, There is no more compensation to those who are not suitable for these jobs and still stay at home.

  In summery, It’s not convinced that the reader disprove the former article just by quoting the other contradict one. A real cogent argument should come from citing such most reliable and precise data as “jobs which unemployment population are fully competent for are increasing”, “The re-occupation rate has been raised very quickly and most of them get a higher wage than their previous job”. Therefore, the writer of the letter provided a immature even unreasonable critique.