Argument143 [Victors小组]第九次作业 by H-Kevin

H-KevinUID: 2182070

143. 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.

你们最近关于美国集体裁员的文章是有误导性的。该文章给人们一种错误的印象，即很多在企业面临严重经济困难的时候裁员而导致失业的有能力的工人通常要用几年的时间找到另一份合适的工作。但这种感觉与最近一次关于美国经济的报告相矛盾，报告发现自1992年以来新增的就业机会数量远超过消失的岗位数量。该报告也指出很多失业人员已经找到了新工作。新增就业机会中有三分之二是那些提供高于平均水平薪酬的企业提供的，而且这些岗位绝大多数是全职工作。

提纲
1.新增的就业机会满足不了激增的人口，更多的人在寻找工作
2.很多人已经找到新工作，并没有说用了多长时间，也没有具体的数值关于many,所以不足信
3.工资高于平均水平并不能就说明不是economic hardship，因为如果生活成本增加了，而工资增加的幅度很小，那么还是economic hardship，而且文章也说了只是新增加的岗位的工资高于平均水平，并不是所有的

TIME: 40   NUMBER: 603

This author argues that he or she disagree the article in which the employees lost their job facing the economic hardship and spent long time for finding a new suitable job. To support this argument the author cites, in a recent report on the United States economy, more jobs was provided, and many of those who lost their jobs have found a new one. The article also claims that two-thirds newly created jobs tend to pay above average wages. The argument suffers from three critical flaws and is therefore unpersuasive as it stands.

To begin with, the argument fails to adequately support the claim that newly increased jobs could satisfy the requirement of those employees who lost their jobs. The reason is that not all the new jobs were only provided for those unemployed men, all the people have the chance to compete for this job with the unemployed men, such as increased number of college graduate and the women who worked as housewives before but now have to find jobs and earn the money in order to facing serious economic hardship, it is fallacious to conclude that the employees who lost their job in one factory could get another newly created one immediately without considering the other job hunters . Having failed to address this distinct possibility, the argument is wholly unconvincing.

In further support of the argument, the author cites the fact that many of those who lost their jobs have found new employment. But this fact alone lends no support to the argument. It is possible, for instance, that these unemployed men spent several years to find this new job, which is even accord with the report author disagreed, due to there is no any evidence show us how long these unemployed men used for finding, indeed, we have not mentioned that whether these new jobs are suitable or not. More over, “many” is a word not accurate enough, perhaps 100 hundreds person is so-called “many” for that editorial who write the recent report on the United States economy. The author must eliminate these possibilities in order to rely justifiably on this evidence for his or her argument.

The article's reliance on that two-thirds newly created jobs tend to pay above average wages could fight with the statement of serious economic hardship is also problematic in two respects. First, the above average wages provided by the two-thirds newly created jobs not equal to the fact that majority workers and employers could earn not the lower salary due to the serious economic hardship but the above average wage. Secondly, the author has not referred the imaginable change in the ordinary consumption since the wage was perhaps increased. So if the above average money could not sustain the life at the same level , even much lower, compare to that before 1992, how it can prove that there is not a serious economic hardship?

In conclusion, the letter's author fails to adequately support the argument that article in which the employees lost their job facing the economic hardship and spent long time for finding a new suitable job is misleading. To strengthen the argument, the author must provide evidence that all these employers who lost their jobs could get newly increased jobs. To better evaluate the argument, we would need more information about how long these workers find these newly increased jobs. Finally, to better assess the argument we would need to know whether majority employers and workers could earn more wages, and whether these wages can not be counteracted by the increased level of ordinary consumption from the serious economy hardship.

[ 本帖最后由 lastangel 于 2007-6-17 16:35 编辑 ]

最後の使徒UID: 2257608

This author argues that he or she disagree (this author disagrees就行了...) the article in which (which states 员工不是在文章里失业的..) the employees lost their job facing the economic hardship and spent long time for finding a new suitable job. To support this argument (which argument? 前面取非这里还是用disprove, rebute这种比较直接) the author cites, in a recent report on the United States economy, more jobs was (were) provided, and many of those who lost their jobs have found a new one. The article also claims that two-thirds newly created jobs tend to pay above average wages(claims还是cites? 这个是论点还是论据?). The argument suffers from three critical flaws and is therefore unpersuasive as it stands.(总体而言对于题目的重述还是显得混乱, 三个论据各自为证串得比较意识流, 不妨用大列举)

To begin with, the argument fails to adequately support the claim that newly increased jobs could satisfy the requirement of those employees who lost their jobs. (Has the author made such claim? 还是模版化的问题, 直接就上了the author fails to support...这种句势, 但题目中作者并没有support什么观点, 而是在rebute一个观点, 作者也没有直接说新增的职业能够弥补需求--事实上他是刚好忽略了这一点, 因此在选择表达上这个主题句还需要推敲)The reason is that not all the new jobs were only provided for those unemployed men,(how do you know it? 这里作为反证应该说明只是可能性) all the people have the chance to compete for this job with the unemployed men, such as increased number of college graduate and the women who worked as housewives before but now have to find jobs and earn the money in order to facing serious economic hardship, it is fallacious to conclude that the employees who lost their job in one factory could get another newly created one immediately without considering the other job hunters . Having failed to address this distinct possibility, the argument is wholly unconvincing.(个人认为你这一段的论证出发点有问题, 作者在引用报告的时候指出this impression is contradicted by...far more jobs have been created, 这个是作者最直接的论断, 也是最明显的靶子, 因此我认为在攻击时也应该直接指向这个论断, 说明这二种情况并不contradict, 工作机会大量增加不代表失业工人就能找到合适的工作--其他人竞争, 人口增长, 专业工作反而下降, 等等)

In further support of the argument, the author cites the fact that many of those who lost their jobs have found new employment. But this fact alone lends no support to the argument. (why?说明原因才有信息量) It is possible, for instance, that these unemployed men spent several years to find this new job, which is even accord with the report author disagreed,(which accords with the report) due to there is no any evidence show us how long these unemployed men used for finding,(lacking of information showing how long...) indeed (Meanwhile/Further/Equally), we have not (been) mentioned that whether these new jobs are suitable or not(which also leaves the author's retortion ungrounded). More over, “many” is a word not accurate enough,perhaps 100 hundreds person is so-called “many” for that editorial who write the recent report on the United States economy.(a vague conception, giving no support when concerning if the majority have found jobs) (Many概念模糊比时间不知道更有攻击性, 可以放在前面)The author must eliminate these possibilities in order to rely justifiably on this evidence for his or her argument.(最后这句非常模版化, 你在论证中提的有些都不是possibility, 这种时候最好变通下, 说明作者无法确认具体情况所以不能给出有效论证就行了) (本段的论证组织不错, 跟题目中的条目一一对应, 但和上段一样, 还是出发点的问题, 另外语法错误比较多, 有些表达也很累赘, 建议加强语言积累)

The article's reliance on that two-thirds newly created jobs tend to pay above average wages could fight with the statement of serious economic hardship (has the author made such reliance as well? 作者也没直接说他们就在和经济困难做斗争了, 因此在重述题目的时候要注意准确把握题目中作者的表达和意图. 这里作者只是为了证明再就业的就业质量) is also problematic in two respects. First, the above average wages provided by the two-thirds newly created jobs (are) not equal to the fact that majority workers and employers could earn not the lower salary due to the serious economic hardship but the above average wage.(why?) Secondly, the author has not referred the imaginable change in the ordinary consumption since the wage was perhaps increased (因为? 从...开始? 这段句意不明, 让人看的很晕). So if the above average money could not sustain the life at the same level , even much lower, compare to that before 1992, how it can (can it) prove that there is not a serious economic hardship?

In conclusion, the letter's author fails to adequately support the argument that article in which the employees lost their job facing the economic hardship and spent long time for finding a new suitable job is misleading. To strengthen the argument, the author must provide evidence that all these employers who lost their jobs could get newly increased jobs. To better evaluate the argument, we would need more information about how long these workers find these newly increased jobs. Finally, to better assess the argument we would need to know whether majority employers and workers could earn more wages, and whether these wages can not be counteracted by the increased level of ordinary consumption from the serious economy hardship.

总评:
个人认为这是一道比较难的题目, 第一, 作者提供的是一个驳论而不是一个立论, 因此在论证上很多套路都不适用, 第二, 作者提供的三个论据看似相互独立但其实环环相扣: 1 很多工作机会被创造出来了 2 很多工人找到新工作 3 2/3的工作薪水高而且是全职的 这里作者隐藏的逻辑是三者共同证明工人得益于新增加的就业机会找到了工作, 而且工作的质量很高, 但三条论据之间存在着错误推断, 即2/3对工人找到的工作同样适用, 新创造的工作机会都给工人找去了, 这种论据之间的连接其实很不好批驳. 我觉得最好的办法还是象其它题目一样当独立论据批, 然后指出它们各自的错误, 但这种错误需要涉及到它们的共同作用, 即提到的两个错误假设, 这样使它们的连接失效, 从而有效批驳作者.

这次的破题思路LZ比上回有了很大进步, 起码结构很明确了, 但在论证上还是存在表达含糊不到位的情况, 加上一些模版句子, 很多意思得不到精确表达, 令文章显得很宽泛和松散, 建议再推敲下自己的论证模式, 看看是不是很好地传达了自己的意思.

zhaodanzheUID: 2136105

斑竹是美国人吧，敬佩 敬佩

菲子UID: 2311527

怎么这里也灌上了？