argument143 G-89-互助社-22日 （已用WORD修改红绿线，高频，请各位高手拍砖、交流）

fantasianosUID: 207837

In this letter, the author declares that an article in a national newspaper is misleading, on strength of a recent report. The reasoning, nevertheless, suffers a series of serious logic fallacies, which makes the conclusion dubious.

First of all, it is the report on economy that the reasoning holistically bases on. However, the origin of the data in the report is not proved by the writer to be reliable. For example, whether the number of participants providing data in the report is sufficient and what kinds of persons participated are able to determine whether the situation claimed in the report representative and objective.

Secondly, some facts articulated in the report may not supply the evidence the author wants. For one thing, it is showed that ever since 1992 that far more jobs have been created than eliminated. But what if the total of jobs created after 1992 as large as the quantity of joblosers? In the case that the number of jobs decreased after 1992 is only 2,000, while the whole since even longer before reaches 100,000, and there have been 10,000 created jobs ever since, neither the report is overturned nor the author's implement is got. Moreover, the number of those losing jobs who have found new employment is only suggested to be many, without a detail number, which is so obscure that it can be the case that still the majority of job-losers are not able to get a new position.

What is more, whether a person accept a job is not only determined by the salary and whether part-time or full-time, but also a good boss, the applicant's interest and ability and much more other elements. The author merely suggests that the wages of two thirds of the new jobs are above-average. However, for a possibly colossal quantity of those who lost their jobs, an above-average wage can be much lower than what they got before, enveloping dissatisfaction on them. Furthermore, the jobs industries may not fit those competent former-secretaries, former-doctors or former-lawyers.

Last but not least, what the author implies is that certain conflicts exist between the article and the report. As a matter of fact, no any conflicts can be found. What the article tells is the situation job-losers face before they find a new employment, comparing to whether employed or not by the report. The fact that one certain individual spends years on economic hardship before getting a job with above-average wage can be true. Actually, the article is neither for nor against the report.

As a conclusion, what the author claims in the letter is undermined by the logic drawbacks in the process of reasoning.

tuesday420UID: 202475

In this letter, the author declares that an article in a national newspaper is misleading, on strength of a recent report. The reasoning, nevertheless, suffers a series of serious(hehe,这两个词读音一样好绕) logic fallacies, which makes the conclusion dubious.

First of all, it is the report on economy that the reasoning holistically bases(based) on. However, the origin of the data in the report is not proved by the writer to be reliable. For example, whether the number of participants providing data in the report is sufficient and what kinds of persons participated are able to determine whether the situation claimed in the report representative and objective.

Secondly, some facts articulated in the report may not supply the evidence the author wants(implies?). For one thing, it is showed that ever since 1992 that far more jobs have been created than eliminated. But what if the total of jobs created after 1992 as large as the quantity of joblosers? In the case that the number of jobs decreased after 1992 is only 2,000, while the whole since even longer before reaches 100,000, and there have been 10,000 created jobs ever since(这句没看懂), neither the report is overturned nor the author's implement is got. Moreover, the number of those losing jobs who have found new employment is only suggested to be many, without a detail number, which is so obscure that it can be the case that still the majority of job-losers are not able to get a new position.

What is more, whether a person accept a job is not only determined by the salary and whether part-time or full-time, but also a good boss, the applicant's interest and ability and much more other elements. The author merely suggests that the wages of two thirds of the new jobs are above-average. However, for a possibly colossal quantity of those who lost their jobs, an above-average wage can be much lower than what they got before, enveloping dissatisfaction on them. Furthermore, the jobs industries may not fit those competent former-secretaries, former-doctors or former-lawyers.

Last but not least, what the author implies is that certain conflicts exist between the article and the report. As a matter of fact, no any conflicts can be found. What the article tells is the situation job-losers face before they find a new employment, comparing to whether employed or not by the report. The fact that one(删掉) certain individual spends(certain individuals spend) years on economic hardship before getting a job with above-average wage can be true. Actually, the article is neither for nor against the report.

As a conclusion, what the author claims in the letter is undermined by the logic drawbacks in the process of reasoning.(结尾是不是太简单了，最好要总结一下吧)
个人感觉楼主找到了一些点，但是有的不是特别好，继续加油~ :victory:

[ Last edited by tuesday420 on 2005-8-23 at 15:54 ]

fantasianosUID: 207837

谢谢tuesday，我又重新仔细看了看题目，的确有的不是重点，也有的叙述有问题，谢谢指出