argument143 <米国有米第十一次作业〉

blackswitchUID: 2110679

In this argument, the arguer concludes that the corporate downsizing do not cause the competent workers who lost job face economic hardship for years. To supports his assertion, the arguer cites a recent reports on the United States economy. However, several flaws in this argument made it unconvincing.
To begin with, the arguer equals the fact that more newly created jobs with that these workers who are out of work can find job. Yet, it is not the case. It is entirely impossible that the newly created jobs are not proper for the workers of losing their jobs. For instance, a majority of new increasing jobs are in the computer field. But most workers being lay off are mechanist. In this case, finding a new job is also difficult for them. In addition, we are not informed when the new jobs are created, whether the corporate downsizing is synchronous with the new job opening. If the increasing of new employee happened two years later of the downsizing, even if the new demands for workers are the workers who lost jobs in the downsizing, these workers also need a long time to find a new job.
Secondly, the aruger fails to provide the time that the reports are made. Perhaps the report reflects the economic condition of from 1992 to 2000. Likely that , the past condition has a few evidence to reflect the coming economical condition. Perhaps the reason of downsizing in those years is that the new created corporation defeat the old corporation, thereby making the old corporation face a  huge amount of decreasing of sales and had to lay off their workers. In that case, these workers who are fired by the old company are easier to find a new job in the new created company. However, now, the reason for corporate downsizing is the overall decline of national economy. Therefore, there are few company which is expanding and workers are hard to find a new job. In short, to convince me that in current time the new created jobs are more than the eliminated jobs ,the arguer must provide the analysis about current economical condition.
In the final analysis, the arguer fails to inform us that the details of the people who have find a new employment. How long did these people spent on finding a new job?  Whether did these people satisfy with the new job?  Whether did these people get more salary than before?  Assuming that  the former computer engineering now find a new employment of cleaner, can we conclude that these workers who lost jobs did not face serious economic problems?  Absolutely, we cannot.
To sum up, the argument is hardly convincing due to the above fallacies.

laner023UID: 2223653

In this argument, the arguer concludes that the corporate downsizing do not cause the competent workers who lost job face economic hardship for years. To supports his assertion, the arguer cites a recent reports on the United States economy. However, several flaws in this argument made it unconvincing.

To begin with, the arguer equals the fact that more newly created jobs with that these workers who are out of work can find job. Yet, it is not the case. It is entirely impossible that the newly created jobs are not proper for the workers of losing their jobs. (who lose their job) For instance, a majority of new increasing (increased) jobs are in the computer field. But most workers being lay off are mechanist (machinist). In this case, finding a new job is also difficult for them. In addition, we are not informed when the new jobs are created, (and) whether the corporate downsizing is synchronous with the new job opening. If the increasing of new employee happened two years later of the downsizing, even if the new demands for workers are the workers who lost jobs in the downsizing, these workers also need a long time to find a new job.

Secondly, the aruger (arguer) fails to provide the time that the reports are made. Perhaps the report reflects the economic condition of from 1992 to 2000. Likely that, the past condition has a few evidence to reflect the coming economical condition. Perhaps the reason of downsizing in those years is that the new created corporation defeat (s)  the old corporation, thereby making the old corporation face a huge amount of decreasing of sales and had to lay off their workers. In that case, these workers who are fired by the old company are easier to find a new job in the new created company. However, now, the reason for corporate downsizing is the overall decline of national economy. (文中没有提到阿) Therefore, there are few company which is expanding and workers are hard to find a new job. In short, to convince me that in current time the new created jobs are more than the eliminated jobs, the arguer must provide the analysis about current economical condition. (我不明白你为什么要用那么大的篇幅去支持作者的观点，而反驳的部分又缺乏说服力)

In the final analysis, the arguer fails to inform us that the details of the people who have find a new employment. How long did these people spent on finding a new job? Whether (去掉)  did these people satisfy with the new job? Whether (去掉)  did these people get more salary than before? (作者没有假设那些事业的人现在争得比以前多啊，只要问是否和从前一样就行了) Assuming that the former computer engineering now find a new employment of cleaner, can we conclude that these workers who lost jobs did not face serious economic problems?  Absolutely, we cannot.

To sum up, the argument is hardly convincing due to the above fallacies.

[ 本帖最后由 laner023 于 2007-1-28 20:06 编辑 ]