Argument143 [Victors小组]第九次作业

乳虎UID: 2251211

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.
提纲：
（1）         many太模糊了。
（2）          作者没有对1992年以来就业市场上的供给和需求进行对比。
（3）  作者没有从行业和地区两个方面对就业形势进行结构性分析。
In this argument, the arguer refutes an article showing that many competent workers who lost jobs as a result of downsizing are confronted with serious economic hardship for years, before hunting other suitable employment. In order to support his or her claim, the author quotes three findings of a recent report ：Firstly， since 1992 America has created far more jobs than have eliminated；secondly， many unemployed people have found new employment；last， tow-thirds of the newly created jobs have been in industries ranked in above-average-wage, moreover vast majority of which are full-time. In my view, the argument involves a series of logical flaws which make it not convincing.


In the first place， the information that since 1992 many unemployed people have found new employment is to vague. The arguer fails to provide a criterion, so we will wonder how many means many and how many means few. Perhaps although the population who employed again amount to a large number, the percentage is very little. In that case argument rather than the article is misleading.


In the first place, mere the fact that since 1992 America has created far more jobs than  has eliminated does not suffice to indicate that the total of jobs is abundant enough to satisfy the demand of the unemployed labor force. The equilibrium in employment market is the function of supply of jobs and the demand of jobs. However, the arguer fails to compare the demand of jobs and the supply of the jobs. It is totally possible that in the lasting years the demand of job has raised greatly, in that sense, even America has created many jobs,  it can not satisfy the large demand. Absent the comparison between the demand and the supply in labor market, the arguer is doomed to fail to make some sound conclusion.

In the second place, assuming the total of jobs in labor market is large enough to satisfy the demand, the fact can not make sure that every unemployed people can find a suitable job. Commonsense informs us that every employee has the technique suitable to some jobs, nobody can do all kinds of jobs. Take a worker in textile industry for example, even if there are opportunities in steel industry, it is almost impossible for him to get a job in that industry. On the other hand, the arguer fails to analyze the employment situation in distinct regions. The situation in specific region are often different, some region is troubled by unemployment while other might face the shortage of labor force. However, it is difficult for the unemployed people in New York State to leave his or her home to work in Alaska. Unless the arguer provides the information in foregoing aspects, I can not take seriously his claim.

To sum up, the arguer commits a series of logical flaws in the argument, which render his or her claim not tenable. In order to consolidate it, the arguer should provide quantitative information about the emjployment situation of America at first. In addition it is necessary to compare the demand and the supply of jobs in labor market and analysize the employment in different regions.

[ 本帖最后由 乳虎 于 2007-6-16 15:38 编辑 ]

15348664UID: 2269142

这篇文章论据有三
1、工作岗位从92年起就一直在增多
2、很多失业的人找到了工作。
3、2/3的工作是高薪全职的。

其实不难看出，这篇argument批判的观点often for years, before finding other suitable employment. ，而arguer的论据实际并没有必然的矛盾。这也就是攻击点所在。

点评：

1、楼主要注意攻击的顺序，可以按逻辑，或者是原顺序逐条攻击。
2、很多失业的人找到了工作。除了攻击many用此too vague外，也可以说并没有提到待业的时间，如果很多年才找到工作的话，不就正好印证文章观点了么。

欢迎和楼主交流。