argument143【加州阳光】第九次作业 拍的响亮~

benniUID: 2166321

------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.


------提纲------
1、提供的比减少的多，但可能两者的差距已经大幅度减小，而且需要就业的人数也在增加
2、虽然他们其中的根多人找到了工作，但可能花了很长时间才找到一些收入很低的工作
3、那些高薪产业聘请他们，未必会给他们高薪，可能只有有能力的老员工才有高薪；此外full-time也只是影响薪水的一方面。


------正文------
In the letter, the speaker concludes that the corporate downsizing in the United States is actually not as serious as the newspaper said. To support the conclusion, the author cites a report which demonstrates:(1) that since 1992 more jobs have been provided than have been eliminated, and(2) that many people who lost jobs have found new employment, and(3)that two-thirds of the new jobs have been in industries that usually pay above-average wages, and the most of them are full-time. Close scrutiny of the report, however, reveals that it lends little credible support to the conclusion.

To begin with, the fact that newly created jobs are more than eliminated ones does not necessarily indicate that people will easily find jobs. Actually, with the increasing of the openings, the number of the people who need a job must also be growing. Moreover, it is possible that the new opportunities have notably decreased and the eliminated ones have conspicuously increased since 1992, though they also have a little distance. In a word, the argument is unwarranted without providing the specific data about the number of jobs and the people who long for a job.

Secondly, the author commits the fallacy of "oversimplification". Although many of those who lost jobs have found new employment, the author does no inform us how long for them to find the new job. Perhaps, they may have decades of interviews and spent average five years to get a new job. What’s more, we are not informed what the job these people eventually found. It is entirely possible that they just get a unsuitable job with extremely low salary however, they were in poor financial condition and tired of finding job, which forced them to accept the job they totally dislike. To sum up, without detailed information about these new jobs, the argument would be highly doubtful.

Finally, this statement is based on a legitimacy assumption that the industries that tend to pay above-average wages and offer two-thirds openings would pay high-salary to the new employees. In fact, it is equally possible that they actually pay very low salary to the new employee while pay the ones with sufficient experience and proficient skill high salary and if so, the argument receives no support from the evidence. In addition, the arguer attempts to establish a causal connection between full-time job and high-wage. However, other than working time, many factors would contribute to the salary, such as competence or position, which are unjustifiably neglected.

In sum, the conclusion rests on some suspicious assumptions that make it unconvincing as it stands. To bolster the conclusion, the arguer should provide more clear evidence-perhaps by the way of a national wide survey-that the competent workers who lost jobs because of downsizing would find a suitable job in short time. To better assess the conclusion, I also need to know the salary condition of these new jobs and the total number of the lost-job workers.

leaf99UID: 2174003

In the letter, the speaker concludes that the corporate downsizing in the United States is actually not as serious as the newspaper said. To support the conclusion, the author cites a report which demonstrates1) that since 1992 more jobs have been provided than have been eliminated, and(2) that many people who lost jobs have found new employment, and(3)that two-thirds of the new jobs have been in industries that usually pay above-average wages, and the most of them are full-time. Close scrutiny of the report, however, reveals that it lends little credible support to the conclusion.(这样照搬原文合适吗？我也不太清楚)

To begin with, the fact that newly created jobs are more than eliminated ones does not necessarily indicate that people will easily find jobs. Actually, with the increasing of the openings, the number of the people who need a job must also be growing(opening可数名词时指口子...). Moreover, it is possible that the new opportunities have notably decreased and the eliminated ones have conspicuously increased since 1992, though they also have a little distance. In a word, the argument is unwarranted without providing the specific data about the number of new jobs and the people who long for a job.

Secondly, the author commits the fallacy of "oversimplification". Although many of those who lost jobs have found new employment, the author does no inform us how long for them to find the new job. Perhaps, they may have decades of interviews and spent average five years to get a new job. What’s more, we are not informed what the job these people eventually found. It is entirely possible that they just get a unsuitable job with extremely low salary however, they were in poor financial condition and tired of finding job, which forced them to accept the job they totally dislike.(good point) To sum up, without detailed information about these new jobs, the argument would be highly doubtful.

Finally, this statement is based on a legitimacy (legitimate) assumption that the industries that tend to pay above-average wages and offer two-thirds openings would pay high-salary to the new employees. In fact, it is equally possible that they actually pay very low salary to the new employee while pay the ones with sufficient experience and proficient skill high salary and if so, the argument receives no support from the evidence.(下岗工人不就是有工作经验的嘛) In addition, the arguer attempts to establish a causal connection between full-time job and high-wage. However, other than working time, many factors would contribute to the salary, such as competence or position, which are unjustifiably neglected（我觉得这不是可以批驳的地方。论者也在陈述事实。）.

In sum, the conclusion rests on some suspicious assumptions that make it unconvincing as it stands. To bolster the conclusion, the arguer should provide more clear evidence-perhaps by the way of a national wide survey-that the competent workers who lost jobs because of downsizing would find a suitable job in short time. To better assess the conclusion, I also need to know the salary condition of these new jobs and the total number of the lost-job workers.

总体：已经写得很熟练了，稍微有些语言错误。最后一论点我个人觉得不是很妥。

拍拍我的argument143
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1

[ 本帖最后由 leaf99 于 2006-7-11 10:53 编辑 ]