Argument143 【Persistence 小组】第28次作业

iamstoicUID: 2294314

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: 257          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2007-2-27

In this letter, the author concludes that the article, which tells that many competent workers who are reduced to unemployment resulted from corporate downsizing face serious economic hardship before finding new jobs, is misleading. To bolster this conclusion, the author cited a recent report from the United States economy. However, a careful examination would reveal how groundless the letter is.

In the first place, the author points out that far more jobs have been created than have been eliminated since 1992, and thus he/she assumes that corporate downsizing will not lead to unemployment. However, the author fails to consider the possibility that although far more jobs have been created, workers who lost their jobs cannot meet what these newly created jobs demand. Perhaps the unemployed workers are too old to learn the new skills for the new jobs, whereas they were competent in their old jobs. Without ruling such possibilities, the author cannot persuade me to take his/her conclusion seriously.

In the second place, the author also cites that many of those who lost their jobs have found new employment, but it does not necessarily indicate that they have found suitable jobs after unemployment. It is entirely possible that the majority of the unemployed workers have to find new jobs, for better or worse, so as to  withstand the serious economic hardship resulted from downsizing. Perhaps the temporarily new job they find is not suitable for them at all, and they are inclined to change for another one. Perhaps due to their incompetence in the new job, their living conditions are worse than that before downsizing. For this reason, the author cannot prove the article misleading.

In the third place, the evidence that two-thirds of the new jobs in industries tend to pay above-average wages cannot indicate that these jobs are provided for those who lost their jobs. It might be the case that the jobs which tend to pay high wages is designed to offer to those who are graduated from universities with master even doctor’s degree. Thus, the newly created jobs may not have to do with the unemployed workers, and therefore the author's conclusion is questionable.

In the final analysis, the author fails to present strong support to his/her conclusion about the opposition to the article. To better evaluate this letter, I need more information about whether the new jobs are suitable for the unemployed workers and can offer more wages to them.

[ 本帖最后由 iamstoic 于 2007-2-27 22:27 编辑 ]