argument143 【米国有米】第十一次作业

holdingUID: 2285054

TOPIC: 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, 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.
WORDS: 450          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2007-1-26

In this argument, the arguer claimed that the recent article about many competent workers who lost jobs and have an economic problem as a result of downsizing. To support his opinion, the author claimed that since 1992 far more jobs have been created than have been eliminated and many of job-losers have been found new employment and many of the newly created jobs are high-wages. At the first glance, it seems that the argument is convincing, but when I take a carefully research on it, I find that there are many flaws and even mistakes to make the conclusion groundless.

First of all, the author claim that a recent report on the United States economy found that since 1992 far more jobs have been created more jobs than eliminated jobs. The author made a mistake of logic. For example, the total number of population has raise faster than the speed of new-jobs created. So even though far more jobs have been created than have been eliminated, the company will still downsize and many people will still lose job.

Secondly, the author shows up a report to support his or her argument. But through this argument, we can not find any information about the reliability of this report. Whether the report is made by some experts or not, when the report is made, what range the report touched, and so on. These questions are becoming the blockage on the way of convincing report. On the other word, there is no warrant evidence that can prove the report cited is persuaded.

Thirdly, arguer said that 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. The arguer made a fallacy that these two-thirds jobs is suitable to the labour downsized by corporation. For example, if the jobs which tend to pay above-average wages suggest high technology and wide knowledge, the job-loser in corporation downsizing can not hunt these high-paid jobs, because they do not have these qualities and even lose their own advantage because of long period unemployed.

In a conclusion, if the arguer wants to make his or her attack to the recent article of a national newspaper more reasonable, he or she should hunt more information to make the report more convincing and authoritative. Besides, the author also should prove that not only in industries but also in other fields most jobs newly created are tend to pay above-average wages, and more will be paid to full-time jobs.

cckantUID: 2247822

argument143 【米国有米】第十一次作业
TOPIC: 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, 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.
WORDS: 450          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2007-1-26

In this argument, the arguer claimed that the recent article about many competent workers who lost jobs and have an economic problem as a result of (coporate) downsizing (is inaccurate). To support his opinion, the author claimed that since 1992 far more jobs have been created than have been eliminated(,) many of job-losers have been found new employment(,) and many of the newly created jobs are(newly created positions are paid) high-wages. At the first glance, it seems that the argument is convincing, but when I take a carefully research(exam) reseach在这里不恰当，因为你没有另外找资料 on it, I find that there are many flaws and even mistakes(flaw和mistake在这里的语言很难区分，固然两者可以翻译成缺点＆错误，但flaws更多地是被理解成缺陷，那么就和mistake的意思差不多了，如果觉得但用flaws程度不够深的话，不妨用flaws in reasoning) to make the conclusion groundless.

First of all, the author claim(ed) that a recent report on the United States economy found that since 1992 far more jobs have been created more jobs than eliminated jobs. The author made a mistake of logic(by equating the net job created with the prosperity in the jobs market这样会连贯一点.) For example, (it is possible that )the total number of population has raise faster than the speed of new-jobs created. So even though far more jobs have been created than have been eliminated, the company will still downsize and many people will still lose job (新增职位和corporate downsizing 没有必然的联系，新增职位＆就业人口的相对关系只影响到找工作的难度，或者整体的就业情况).

Secondly, the author shows up a report to support his or her argument(上下文引用的是同一个report). But through this argument, we can not find any information about the reliability of this report. Whether the report is made by some experts or not, when the report is made, what range the report touched is covered, and so on (are uncertain 没有后面的句子主干，whether, when, what 只能是问句). These questions are becoming the blockage on the way of convincing report. On the other word, there is no warrant evidence that can prove the report cited is persuaded. (感觉这个攻击点比较弱)

Thirdly, arguer said that 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. The arguer made a fallacy that these two-thirds jobs is suitable to the labour downsized by corporation (suitable workers who lost their jobs in downsizing,{downsize a firm, not downsize labour}). For example, if the jobs which tend to pay above-average wages suggest (require high-tech skills) high technology and wide knowledge, the job-loser in (traditional industries) can not hunt these high-paid jobs, because they do not have these qualities and even lose their own advantage because of long period unemployed.

In a conclusion, if the arguer wants to make his or her attack to the recent article of a national newspaper more reasonable, he or she should huntgather more information to make the report more convincing and authoritative (authoritative 似乎不太恰当). Besides, the author also should prove that not only in industries but also in other fields (sectors) most jobs newly created are tend to pay above-average wages, and more will be paid to full-time jobs. (原文讲新增就业主要集中的薪资高的产业，而不是说在产业界industries（相对于政府部门，教育部门，非盈利组织）薪水高)

对攻击点的反驳展开不是很充分，段内的句与句间的连接也不是很紧密。自身的叙述也不是很严谨，感觉写的没有issue好，建议楼主多加阅读范文和练习argument。

互勉！ Cheer up!