Argument143，限时不成功，想到的点感觉不好写，大家讨论下。。

AlierUID: 159518

Argument143: 265 words   25 minutes
题目：
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.
正文：
In the argument, the author disputed an article he seemed as misleading because of his findings that the jobs newly created far outweighs those eliminated since 1992, many workers are reemployed and the majority of newly created jobs are mostly full-time and with high pay. Though these evidences may seems as first glance in support of his view, close scrutiny reveals many dubious assumptions and reasoning flaws in it, which make his standpoint groundless.

To begin with, the argument is mainly based on an assumption that the it is easier now for those laying off previously to find new employment, but this assumption is unwarranted in itself without sufficient support. It mentioned in the argument that since 1992, new jobs created are far more than those eliminated, which implied that more job openings are available, but the author fails to consider the accordingly increase in the people competing for jobs. First, a great number of fresh graduates from colleges and universities undoubtedly will form a strong competitor against those laid-offs. Also, there is possibility that in the few years, many more are laid off, thus also joined the group of seeking jobs. Further, it is also possible that migrants from other countries also took part in the sharing of limited job openings. Thus in these situations, even if the net number of jobs increased, the real available job openings for those fired previously may actually decrease. Similarly, it is only said that many of the unemployed men finally find reemployment, but without providing the exact time they cost finding a job, we could not take it for granted that it is a easy process. Perhaps it takes them several years before being reemployed. Merely providing these vague descriptions, the author could not make us believe in the improvement of ease for unemployed ones to get reemployed.

Even given that most of the workers successfully find reemployments, there is also a lack of support in the argument to another assumption of the author: The workers who were reemployed get high pay. As discussed above, though new jobs are created, they are not necessarily taken by the lay-offs. In the contrary, empirical experience tells us such new jobs are often created to meet the new need emerging with society development, which usually calls for fresh vision and modern skills, then it is quite possible that the employers may prefer new graduates to those workers only with outdated experience. Further, even granted they got these jobs, it mentioned that only two-thirds of them are paying higher than average, which imply that the other one-third may pay lower than average. Then if the old workers are just occupying this one-third of jobs, it is entirely possible for them to face economic difficulties.

Finally, the author also draws a false correlation between the type of work and the salary of it. Though it may seems reasonable to think that people earn more from full-time jobs than part-time ones, it is not the case in reality. The salary of a job is decided by a myriad of factors, such as the type of the job, the intensity of working, the job’s requirement of special skills, the company’s welfare policy, and so forth. For example, it is common seen that a basic programmer doing full-time job of programming earns much less than his manager, while the latter may only need to work a few hours a day. Similarly, a famous doctor only doing a few operations a week may earn much more than his nurse working eight hours a day. Therefore, without inspecting more detailed information on the jobs, it is hasty for the author to believe in the good economic condition of those reemployed.

In sum, this argument suffers from several vital flaws that make it unconvincing. To justify his view, the author needs to do more inspection on the true condition of those competent workers laying off from previous jobs and more detailed information on the newly-created jobs.

AlierUID: 159518

自己up一个先～

天晴了UID: 201592

Argument143  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, 【1 】which found that since 1992 far more jobs have been created than have been eliminated. 【2】The report also demonstrates that many of those who lost their jobs have found new employment. 【3 】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 the argument, the author disputed an article he seemed as misleading because of his findings that the jobs newly created far outweighs those eliminated since 1992, many workers are reemployed and the majority of newly created jobs are mostly full-time and with high pay. Though these evidences may seems as first glance in support of his view, close scrutiny reveals many dubious assumptions and reasoning flaws in it, which make his standpoint groundless.

To begin with, the argument is mainly based on an assumption that the it is easier now for those laying off previously to find new employment, but this assumption is unwarranted in itself without sufficient support. It mentioned in the argument that since 1992, new jobs created are far more than those eliminated, which implied that more job openings are available, but the author fails to consider the accordingly 【 好词  简单明确 其实我觉得字数不是问题 说清楚就好了 如果时间总是超 就押着时间写 可能会逼着自己只写有用的话 反而效果会比凑字数好 】 increase in the people competing for jobs. First, a great number of fresh graduates from colleges and universities undoubtedly will form a strong competitor against those laid-offs. Also, there is possibility that in the few years, many more are laid off, 【这些人好像不是新入人口 也就是说 他们虽然加入了找工作的人群 但是他们以前工作的位子就空出来了 】thus also joined the group of seeking jobs. Further, it is also possible that migrants【 对 】 from other countries also took part in the sharing of limited job openings. Thus in these situations, even if the net number of jobs increased, the real available job openings for those fired previously may actually decrease. Similarly, it is only said that many of the unemployed men finally find reemployment, but without providing the exact time they cost finding a job, we could not take it for granted that it is a easy process. Perhaps it takes them several years before being reemployed. Merely providing these vague descriptions, the author could not make us believe in the improvement of ease for unemployed ones to get reemployed.【最后这几句 可以展开 我觉得会比较有说服力】

Even given that most of the workers successfully find reemployments, there is also a lack of support in the argument to another assumption of the author: The workers who were reemployed get high pay. As discussed above, though new jobs are created, they are not necessarily taken by the lay-offs. In the contrary, empirical experience tells us such new jobs are often created to meet the new need emerging with society development, which usually calls for fresh vision and modern skills, then it is quite possible that the employers may prefer new graduates to those workers only with outdated experience. Further, even granted they got these jobs, it mentioned that only two-thirds of them are paying higher than average, which imply that the other one-third may pay lower than average. Then if the old workers are just occupying this one-third of jobs, it is entirely possible for them to face economic difficulties. 【  赞一个 】

Finally, the author also draws a false correlation between the type of work and the salary of it. Though it may seems reasonable to think that people earn more from full-time jobs than part-time ones, it is not the case in reality. The salary of a job is decided by a myriad of factors, such as the type of the job, the intensity of working, the job’s requirement of special skills, the company’s welfare policy, and so forth. For example, it is common seen that a basic programmer doing full-time job of programming earns much less than his manager, while the latter may only need to work a few hours a day. Similarly, a famous doctor only doing a few operations a week may earn much more than his nurse working eight hours a day. Therefore, without inspecting more detailed information on the jobs, it is hasty for the author to believe in the good economic condition of those reemployed.  【有点晕 我看的  人家有说full time】

In sum, this argument suffers from several vital flaws that make it unconvincing. To justify his view, the author needs to do more inspection on the true condition of those competent workers laying off from previous jobs and more detailed information on the newly-created jobs.


我个人意见 还需要讨论！
我按照1,2,3三点批
1 批far more jobs have been created than have been eliminated
和你B1一样   
有新人涌入 说明现在的就业还是严峻   
即便 没有新人 也不意味着这些新工作能到失业人手里  也许有牛人一人兼8职～～

2 many of those who lost their jobs have found new employment.
这条并没有contradict  the article on corporate downsizing
因为找到新工作并不等于是合适的  可能合适的工作很难找  often for years, before finding other suitable employment.
或者找到是找到新工作了 但是正如article 所说  是for years,的  
毕竟article没有说找不到工作啊。

3 Two-thirds of the newly created jobs have been in industries that tend to pay above-average wages,也不和face serious economic hardship, often for years,矛盾
和你的B2认同

天晴了UID: 201592

Alier 啊～ 改了  再讨论一下 PS我吧  
等搜索好用了 我再嗖嗖别人的这篇～

AlierUID: 159518

天晴了，你的在哪里呢？没有找到呢

天晴了UID: 201592

最初由 Alier 发布
[B]天晴了，你的在哪里呢？没有找到呢 [/B]

哦   Alier

我没说清楚
我没写这篇

我意思是等你看了我拍的
发信息给我  
我们再讨论