argument143 让暴风雨来的更猛烈些吧

猫猫624UID: 171232

143The 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.

In this letter arguer claims that one of articles of the national newspaper concerning corporate downsizing in the United States is misleading. In this article the editor asserts that many competent workers who lost jobs resulted from downsizing face serious economic hardship. In order to disagree this article, the arguer cites a recent report showing that many new employment opportunities provided since 1992 and the wages are relatively desirable. Close scrutiny, however, reveals several logical fallacies, which renders this argument unconvincing.

To begin with, the argument is based on the assumption that the recent survey concerning increased new employment is statistically reliable. However, it is not necessarily the case. The arguer provides no evidence that the number of the respondents of the survey is reliable or the respondents are representative of the condition in general. Lacking information about the randomness of sampling or the size of the survey's sample, the arguer's conclusion based on the recent survey is undermined.

Secondly, the arguer relies on another assumption that competent workers who lost jobs are suitable for these increased employments. Perhaps, these new employments require professional skills and knowledge or certain working experience, while competent workers who lost jobs could not satisfy these standards. Without clear information of the type of new employment, the arguer's conclusion that competent workers who lost jobs would find new jobs is indefensible.

Finally, the fact the Two-thirds of the newly created jobs is provided by industries which tend to pay above-average wages and the majority of these jobs are full-time lend little credibility to arguer's conclusion. It is highly possible that these industries would like to pay above-average wages to new employees, involving these competent workers who lost jobs. It is also highly possible that full-time jobs are not lucrative and relatively assiduous. Either possibility, if true, would cast serious doubt on the arguer's conclusion that competent workers who lost jobs can acquire desirable jobs quickly.

To sum up, this argument is unsupportive as it stands. In order to better assess this argument, the arguer should cite convincing evidence indicating that the recent survey is statistically reliable and competent workers who lost jobs are suitable for these increased new employment, and can find new desirable jobs quickly, instead of suffering serious economic hardship.

boyjimUID: 125249

来看看~~~

枫丹UID: 166492

占位,发现你的效率太高了!!

枫丹UID: 166492

In this letter arguer claims that one of articles of the national newspaper concerning corporate downsizing in the United States is misleading. In this article the editor asserts that many competent workers who lost jobs resulted from downsizing face serious economic hardship. In order to disagree （disagree with, 我认为用它不太好，用disprove）this article, the arguer cites a recent report showing that many new employment opportunities provided since 1992 and the wages are relatively desirable. Close scrutiny, however, reveals several logical fallacies, which renders this argument unconvincing. (后面这句比较漂亮！！)

To begin with, the argument is based on the assumption that the recent survey concerning increased new employment is statistically reliable. However, it is not necessarily the case. The arguer provides no evidence that the number of the respondents of the survey is reliable or the respondents are representative of the condition in general. Lacking information about the randomness of sampling or the size of the survey's sample, the arguer's conclusion based on the recent survey is undermined. 文中是说report， 不一定是survey，这一点是不是应该注意呢？

Secondly, the arguer relies on another assumption that competent workers who lost jobs are suitable for these increased employments. Perhaps, these new employments require professional skills and knowledge or certain working experience, while competent workers who lost jobs could not satisfy these standards. Without clear information of the type of new employment, the arguer's conclusion that competent workers who lost jobs would find new jobs is indefensible.
这一段可以深入下去的，给出更多的possible, 或for example 可以深化你的观点，增强力度

Finally, the fact （that）the Two-thirds of the newly created jobs is provided by industries which tend to pay above-average wages and the majority of these jobs are full-time lend little credibility to arguer's conclusion. It is highly possible that these industries would like to pay above-average wages to new employees, involving these competent workers who lost jobs. （加上一个转折however）It is also highly possible that full-time jobs are not lucrative and relatively assiduous. Either possibility, if true, would cast serious doubt on the arguer's conclusion that competent workers who lost jobs can acquire desirable jobs quickly.
关于full-time job 我认为你没有说清楚。前面大部分似乎在让步。
To sum up, this argument is unsupportive as it stands. In order to better assess this argument, the arguer should cite convincing evidence indicating that the recent survey is statistically reliable and competent workers who lost jobs are suitable for these increased new employment, and can find new desirable jobs quickly, instead of suffering serious economic hardship

发现你的语言总是很流畅的说。虽然有个别小错误， 具体意见见上！

猫猫624UID: 171232

最初由 枫丹 发布
[B]In this letter arguer claims that one of articles of the national newspaper concerning corporate downsizing in the United States is misleading. In this article ..

以下省略...... [/B]

谢谢拍砖,提的意见都很好.关于语言流畅,我想思维流畅是基础,也是关键.刚看了你的同主题6,很不错.也许语言上没有多少出彩的地方,但是我认为思维很紧凑,论证也很到位.这点我觉的比花拳秀腿的文章要很多,也正是gre考察的精髓..向你学习!!!!

枫丹UID: 166492

呵呵,你总是很谦虚的说. 语言的流畅来源于思路的流畅,我同意.可是也要又足够的语言表达思路啊! 向你学习才是!! 加油哦!!

skating_dollUID: 168003

143The 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.

In this letter arguer claims that one of articles of the national newspaper concerning corporate downsizing in the United States is misleading. In this article可能简洁点比较好，前面提了in this letter,这里应该用to support it之类的吧 the editor asserts that many competent workers who lost jobs resulted from downsizing face serious economic hardship. In order to disagreedeny可能好一点 this article, the arguer cites a recent report showing that many new employment opportunities provided since 1992 and the wages are relatively desirable. Close scrutiny, however, reveals several logical fallacies, which renders this argument unconvincing.

To begin with, the argument is based on the assumption that the recent survey concerning increased new employment is statistically reliable. However, it is not necessarily the case. The arguer provides no evidence that the number of the respondents of the survey is reliable or the respondents are representative of the condition in general. 这里最好举出一些具体的反例更有说服力，即各种各样的可能性，比如受访者可能集中在某些领域之类的Lacking information about the randomness of sampling or the size of the survey's sample, the arguer's conclusion based on the recent survey is undermined.

Secondly, the arguer relies on another assumption that competent workers who lost jobs are suitable for these increased employments. Perhaps, these new employments require professional skills and knowledge or certain working experience, while competent workers who lost jobs could not satisfy these standards. 再深入一点的话可以说，即使他们能做，也不一定竞争得过同时代的年轻人之类，现在扩招，大学生一大把……Without clear information of the type of new employment, the arguer's conclusion that competent workers who lost jobs would find new jobs is indefensible.

Finally, the fact the Two-thirds of the newly created jobs is provided by industries which tend to pay above-average wages and the majority of these jobs are full-time lend little credibility to arguer's conclusion. It is highly possible that these industries would like to pay above-average wages to new employees, involving these competent workers who lost jobs.这句可能有点多余，跟你的论点没有关系，虽然可以看作一个让步，但可能直截回应平均工资高不代表每个岗位工资高，可能不同级别间差异巨大就可以了，毕竟我们考虑的方面是破，不是立 It is also highly possible that full-time jobs are not lucrative and relatively assiduous. Either possibility, if true, would cast serious doubt on the arguer's conclusion that competent workers who lost jobs can acquire desirable jobs quickly.

To sum up, this argument is unsupportive as it stands. In order to better assess this argument, the arguer should cite convincing evidence indicating that the recent survey is statistically reliable and competent workers who lost jobs are suitable for these increased new employment, and can find new desirable jobs quickly, instead of suffering serious economic hardship.

挺有说服力的，几块小砖不妨事……另外开头可能可以再简洁点。