Argument143 [Victors小组]第九次作业 by solartorch

solartorchUID: 2244205

143The 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.

1，        Research来源不可靠，没有提供任何数据，无法判断它的权威性。
2，        新增的工作岗位不一定和eliminate的对口，比如eliminated的是manufacturing的，而新增的却是Research and design方面的。而且人口在增长，新增的岗位远远不能满足新增的manpower.
3，        更不用说那三分之二。
4，        Many of those who lost their jobs have found new employment. Many是多少没说，而且也许是很长时间后才找到的。
        
字数：654
While it seems true that the facts in the above argument contribute to the conclusion that the editor's recent article on corporate downsizing in the United States is misleading, the evidence and reasoning provided by the author are indefensible under serious scrutiny--mainly in four respects.

To begin with, the author fails to provide any further background or data to bolster the authenticity of the cited report which is the only source in the argument to disprove the editor's recent article. It is entirely possible that the report on the United States economy is based on some one-sided evidence or scant of necessary demonstrations and thus dubious. I cannot access the authority of the report with the information given in the above argument thoroughly under this situation.

Even if we assume the cited report is reliable, the fact that since 1992 far more jobs have been created than have been eliminated cannot be a substantiated reason to contradict the editor's article. For example, the job positions eliminated are mostly on manufacturing area while the newly created ones are related to research and design departments. In this case, no matter how many more jobs are created, the competent workers who lost jobs are still in a difficult status to be recruited. Or perhaps the population's increment rate is larger than the increase of jobs'; every year there are a lot of fresh graduates enter the job market. In that matter, although the number of job positions is escalating, the jobs left to the workers who lost their previous jobs are probably on the contrary less than before. Either of the scenarios, if true, would undermine the inference that the new jobs provided to workers who lost jobs as a result of downsizing are more than the ones eliminated.

Stand on this point, the information provided in the argument about the percentage of high pay and full-time jobs within the newly created jobs are useless. We cannot even tell whether the newly created jobs can solve the unemployment situation of the workers who lost their previous jobs, leave alone the two-thirds out of them. We are totally reasonable to claim that due to the reasons mentioned above or other rational possibilities, these high paid and full-time jobs have been in industries are more likely opening for the working populations other than the workers suffered from downsizing, like manpower in another work field or within other age brackets. In this situation, it is too naïve and unconvincing for the author mentioned the high wages and full-time in the end of the argument.

Lastly, the demonstration in the report that many of those who lost their jobs have found new employment is too vague and lacking of strength to dispute the editor’s article. Firstly, we are not provided the exact number of the workers who found new employment. “Many” is more like a proximate and estimated number which is not credible enough for me to access the evidence. If the author hopes the reader to treat the cited report as a prestige one which has carried out some investigations, he or she at least should provide some specific data or percentage on this demonstration. Secondly, even if I accepted that enough amount of workers have found new jobs; the time used for the job-searching is still need to be considered. Perhaps a lot of workers have found new employment but with a noticeable long time. It that case, the demonstration in the report provided in this argument can not serve to negate the fact that it takes years for workers who lost jobs to find other suitable employment.

In conclusion, the author not only is logically unsound but also relies on several doubtful results and demonstrations in a cited report. To fully convince me, the author should provide more details and more concrete information to dispute the editor’s article about the problems on corporate downsizing in United Sates.

[ 本帖最后由 solartorch 于 2007-6-13 00:42 编辑 ]

jennetrjUID: 2275453

143The 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.

1，        Research来源不可靠，没有提供任何数据，无法判断它的权威性。
2，        新增的工作岗位不一定和eliminate的对口，比如eliminated的是manufacturing的，而新增的却是Research and design方面的。而且人口在增长，新增的岗位远远不能满足新增的manpower.
3，        更不用说那三分之二。
4，        Many of those who lost their jobs have found new employment. Many是多少没说，而且也许是很长时间后才找到的。
        
字数：654
While it seems true that the facts in the above argument contribute to the conclusion that the editor's recent article on corporate downsizing in the United States is misleading, the evidence and reasoning provided by the author are indefensible under serious scrutiny--mainly in four respects.

To begin with, the author fails to provide any further background or data to bolster the authenticity of the cited report which is the only source in the argument to disprove the editor's recent article. It is entirely possible that the report on the United States economy is based on some one-sided evidence or scant of necessary demonstrations and thus dubious. I cannot access the authority of the report with the information given in the above argument thoroughly under this situation.

Even if we assume the cited report is reliable, the fact that since 1992 far more jobs have been created than have been eliminated cannot be a substantiated reason to contradict the editor's article. For example, the job positions eliminated are mostly on manufacturing area while the newly created ones are related to research and design departments. In this case, no matter how many more jobs are created, the competent workers who lost jobs are still in a difficult status to be recruited. Or perhaps the population's increment rate is larger than the increase of jobs'; every year there are a lot of fresh graduates enter the job market. In that matter, although the number of job positions is escalating, the jobs left to the workers who lost their previous jobs are probably on the contrary less than before. Either of the scenarios, if true, would undermine the inference that the new jobs provided to workers who lost jobs as a result of downsizing are more than the ones eliminated.

Stand on this point, the information provided in the argument about the percentage of high pay and full-time jobs within the newly created jobs are useless. We cannot even tell whether the newly created jobs can solve the unemployment situation of the workers who lost their previous jobs, leave alone the two-thirds out of them. We are totally reasonable to claim that due to the reasons mentioned above or other rational possibilities, these high paid and full-time jobs have been in industries are more likely opening for the working populations other than the workers suffered from downsizing, like manpower in another work field or within other age brackets. In this situation, it is too naïve and unconvincing for the author mentioned the high wages and full-time in the end of the argument.

Lastly, the demonstration in the report that many of those who lost their jobs have found new employment is too vague and lacking of strength to dispute the editor’s article. Firstly, we are not provided the exact number of the workers who found new employment. “Many” is more like a proximate and estimated number which is not credible enough for me to access the evidence. If the author hopes the reader to treat the cited report as a prestige one which has carried out some investigations, he or she at least should provide some specific data or percentage on this demonstration. Secondly, even if I accepted that enough amount of workers have found new jobs; the time used for the job-searching is still need to be considered. Perhaps a lot of workers have found new employment but with a noticeable long time. It that case, the demonstration in the report provided in this argument can not serve to negate the fact that it takes years for workers who lost jobs to find other suitable employment.

In conclusion, the author not only is logically unsound but also relies on several doubtful results and demonstrations in a cited report. To fully convince me, the author should provide more details and more concrete information to dispute the editor’s article about the problems on corporate downsizing in United Sates.

觉得LZ的ARGUMENT写得很漂亮，脱离了中国学生常有的模式化，语言精彩