Argument143 <米国有米小组1月27日作业>

aefiterUID: 2134740

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: 421          TIME: 0:27:15          DATE: 2007-1-27

The conclusion to criticize the article is not convincing because the arguer does not provide relevant evidence to support this conclusion. From the two major evidences stated in the process of reasoning, we find neither of them directly support the suggestion that the editor's article is misleading.

Firstly, the recent study, which is claimed to contradict the editor's article, does not lead to the intended conclusion. Although the sum of jobs since 1992 has increased, which is indicated by the study, this fact cannot ensure the workers subject to the downsizing of the corporation will benefit from this increase. As newly created jobs are reflecting the need of the job market, they are not in favor of the people who lost their jobs recently. Perhaps, for example, those who have lost their jobs are all aged 40 to 50; while newly created jobs demand younger individuals who are more likely to be energetic and reliable while serving for the employers. As a result, this study cannot contradict the editor's article.

Further, even the newly created jobs have largely benefited workers who are the victims of the corporate downsizing, it is still unfounded to ensure that those jobs will provide satisfactory wages to workers. Admittedly, the arguer does mention that two-thirds of the newly created jobs pay above-average wages, this evidence may only cover a very small part of all jobs that are provided to those people who lost their jobs. For instance, if the created jobs only occupy one tenth of the overall number of jobs, the above-average wages only privilege these small portion of people. However, for the larger part, they may not receive an average of wages.

Finally, the additive explanation, such as that vast majority of those jobs are full-time, and that the wage paid to workers are above average, do not result in the contradiction that those workers are experiencing economical hardship. For one thing, above-average wages cannot be equally satisfactory to each person. As older people have to cover more cost on health care, they may experience economical hardship even they receive above-average wages. For another thing, full-time jobs do not provide high wage, as is assumed in the reasoning. Perhaps many of these newly created jobs, although being full-time, are elementary jobs that need little technological skills, and accordingly, provide lower wages to workers.

To sum up, this argument cannot validate the claim that the editor's article is misleading. Although two evidence are provided, they are either irrelevant or not sufficient to support this argument.