argument143 FLY AW小组第32次作业（385字）

夜一UID: 2130338

Argument143  第7篇 让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！
------摘要------
作者：寄托家园作文版普通用户     共用时间：30分10秒     385 words
从2006年6月5日12时15分到2006年6月5日12时30分
------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------
The letter asserts that the recent article of the editor of a national newspaper on corporate downsizing in the United States is misleading. The letter refers to a recent report and denies the impression that many competent workers who lost jobs as a result of downsizing face serious economic hardship for years before finding other suitable employment. However, the results of the report are not convincing enough to negate the editor's article.

First of all, the credibility and representability of the report should be carefully examined. Are the data and analyzing schemes involving in the report good enough to create correct results? Can the results represent the national economic status of the United States. If the report does not provide results which can accurately represent the national economy of the United States, it is unreasonable to negate the editor's article with such a report.

Besides, even if the results of the report are correct and representative, it is unverified to deduce from the report that the editor's article is misleading. Firstly, though more jobs have been created than have been eliminated since 1992, the relationship between reemployment and downsizing has not been mentioned by the report. If the growth of downsizing exceeds the growth of reemployment, the number of unemployed residents will not decline at all. Secondly, the report only shows that many of those who have lost jobs have found new employment, but no evidence indicates that they have found suitable jobs which can help them overcome financial hardship, which is stressed by the editor. Moreover, no additional information demonstrates that these people haven't suffered economic hardship for years before they find new jobs. Thirdly, even though two-thirds of the newly created jobs are well paid, no evidence exhibits that these jobs are taken by those who have lost their jobs. Since these jobs are industrial ones, it is doubtful whether those who have been downsized can put up with the new development of industry and grasp these full-time jobs.

In conclusion, despite the uncertain credibility and representbility of the report, the reasons deduced from the report to deny the editor's article are not convincing enough to be accepted by ordinary people. The letter fails to examine the real status of downsizing and reemployment, but only focus on situations which cannot solve this question.