Argument143【米国有米】小组 第十一次作业

laner023UID: 2223653

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: 425          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2007-1-20

In this argument, the author concludes that recent article on corporate downsizing in the United States is misleading based on a recent report. However, this argument relies on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions, which render it unconvincing as it stands.

To begin with, the author fails to provide evidence that the recent report on which this argument depends it reliable and authority. Since the argument mentions little about details of the report, it is entirely possible that the report is based on unreliable statistics, which render the report biased. If the scenario is true, the author's further conclusion merely based on the report is totally undermined. (这段就这么点了，实在不知道该怎么说了)

Secondly, even assuming that the report is reliable, this argument also suffers from two crucial flaws. First, author unfairly assumes that most of job-losers have found new jobs. Yet the fact that far more jobs have been created than have been eliminated does not indicate that there are more job opportunities for those job-losers. Perhaps since 1992 the population of the United States has increased, and therefore there might be more people who have to find jobs. Thus, the opportunities for job-losers to find new jobs did not increase. Moreover, the author also fails to provide details about the newly created jobs. For example, are the newly jobs suitable for these job-losers? Lacking this essential information, it is entirely possible that these jobs involve cook, waiters, or cleaners. Given that these job-losers were competent workers, their expected jobs might have something to do with management, for instance, manager of department. Thus, the newly created jobs might not be suitable for them. Besides, the term "many" is too vague to be informative. If "many" amounts to a small percentage of job-losers, the author cannot rely on this fact to assume that most job-losers found their jobs.

Even if one accepts the previous assumption, the author's further assumption that those job-losers did not suffer from serious economic hardship is still unwarranted. Obviously, the author equates the newly created high-wages jobs with the jobs those job-losers found. However, it is no necessarily the case. Perhaps most of the newly created high-wages jobs are not the majority of those job-losers; thereby they cannot gain the jobs. For example, most of the jobs are required people who are major in computer science; however, perhaps these job-losers are good at management and know little about the operation of computer. Without eliminating this possibility, the author cannot convince me that most job-losers found high-salary jobs.

In sum, the evidence the author provides is insufficient to refute the recent article on corporate downsizing in the United States. To make it more convincing, the author should provide evidence that the cited report is reliable. To better improve the argument, the must also substantiate that most job-losers found new jobs, which offers high salary.

blackswitchUID: 2110679

In this argument, the author concludes that recent article on corporate downsizing in the United States is misleading based on a recent report. However, this argument relies on a series of unsubstantiated assumptions, which render it unconvincing as it stands. [我喜欢这样的开头，对题目的内容复述简洁]

To begin with, the author fails to provide evidence that the recent report on which this argument depends it reliable and authority. Since the argument mentions little about details of the report, it is entirely possible that the report is based on unreliable statistics, which render the report biased. If the scenario is true, the author's further conclusion merely based on the report is totally undermined. (这段就这么点了，实在不知道该怎么说了)[对于这种错误 ，我也是不知道怎末由效的写，这样应该就可以吧]

Secondly, even assuming that the report is reliable, this argument also suffers from two crucial flaws. First, author unfairly assumes that most of job-losers have found new jobs. Yet the fact that far more jobs have been created than have been eliminated does not indicate that there are more job opportunities for those job-losers. Perhaps since 1992 the population of the United States has increased, and therefore there might be more people who have to find jobs. Thus, the opportunities for job-losers to find new jobs did not increase. Moreover, the author also fails to provide details about the newly created jobs. For example, are the newly jobs suitable for these job-losers? Lacking this essential information, it is entirely possible that these jobs involve cook, waiters, or cleaners. Given that these job-losers were competent workers, their expected jobs might have something to do with management, for instance, manager of department. Thus, the newly created jobs might not be suitable for them. Besides, the term "many" is too vague to be informative. If "many" amounts to a small percentage of job-losers, the author cannot rely on this fact to assume that most job-losers found their jobs.

Even if one accepts the previous assumption, the author's further assumption that those job-losers did not suffer from serious economic hardship is still unwarranted. Obviously, the author equates the newly created high-wages jobs with the jobs those job-losers found. However, it is no necessarily the case. Perhaps most of the newly created high-wages jobs are not the majority of those job-losers; thereby they cannot gain the jobs.[这句话容易产生歧义，认为是再说他们找不到工作，我觉得 可以说can not gain the high-salary jobs] For example, most of the jobs are required people who are major in computer science; however, perhaps these job-losers are good at management and know little about the operation of computer. Without eliminating this possibility, the author cannot convince me that most job-losers found high-salary jobs.[觉得这段的理由如果不仔细看，会觉得很上面一段是重复的，我认为可以从 找到工作需要很长时间 和工资比以前低来说明]

In sum, the evidence the author provides is insufficient to refute the recent article on corporate downsizing in the United States. To make it more convincing, the author should provide evidence that the cited report is reliable. To better improve the argument, the must also substantiate that most job-losers found new jobs, which offers high salary.

[全文写的很好，分析透彻， 论述清晰，基本上没有什莫可改的]