Argument143 [Victors小组]第9次作业 by gyyx

gyyxUID: 2290150

A 143
2007-6-15
The author of this argument states that the editor’s article on downsizing is misleading. A recent economy report, which found that more jobs have been created since 1992, and many job-losers have found new employment, is a support for the argument. The author also cites two-thirds of newly created jobs tend to pay above-average wages and be full-time. At first glance of this argument, the author’s conclusion sounds reasonable, however, a close scrutiny to the evidence, reveals that it lend little credible support to the argument.

First of all, the author takes his impression as a representative of all the readers. It is highly possible that it is the author only the one who gets an impression that many competent workers who lost jobs due to downsizing face serious economic hardship, take a few years to find other suitable employment, while other reads with the impression that the workers just want to a job really suit themselves, so they cost a few years to pursue one. Sine suffering from lack of any evidence about the article and the words the editor holds, we could not justifiably rely on the one-side word that the editorial gives a mistaken impression.

Secondly, the author quotes some conclusions of a recent survey to support this argument, which has nothing contradicted with the argument. One of these conclusions is that the jobs have been created are far more than the jobs have been eliminated. For this matter, the author assumes that all other conditions that might affect the relationship between job-hunt and job-lose will remain unchanged since 1992. As this matter only demonstrate that there’s more job chance, and did not provide any auspice to the fact that many competent workers would take a few years to get a proper job.

Additionally, the report also cites many job-losers have found new employment. However, perhaps, the job they found is not suitable to them, or perhaps, the job-losers are not the competent workers the author argued. Either scenario, if true, would serve to undermine the author’s claim that many competent workers will find employment in a moment.

Moreover, the author assumes that the employment have been created in industries that tend to pay above-average wages is the one tend to pay above-average wages. Perhaps the newly created jobs are some physical works, such as cleaners, washers, waiters, and so on, which not tend to be paid more. If so, these jobs are not suitable to the competent workers who lost jobs as a result of downsizing face serious economic hardship. As the jobs are mostly full-time, the job-losers do not have the chance to compare the job with others, he will have to choose one without comparison.

To summarize, the author’s argument is based on assumption and unconvincing. Without ruling out alternative possibilities for the view he hold that the competent workers will find job quickly, and by the contingent evidence the recent report, the arguer fail to refute the view the editor holds, let alone concluding that the editorial is misleading

[ 本帖最后由 gyyx 于 2007-6-15 17:38 编辑 ]

c0053UID: 2285120

The author of this argument states that the editor’s article on downsizing is misleading. A recent economy report, which found that more jobs have been created since 1992, and many job-losers have found new employment, is a support for the argument. The author also cites two-thirds of newly created jobs tend to pay above-average wages and be full-time.（在复述的时候最好换个说法）At first glance of this argument, the author’s conclusion sounds reasonable, however, a close scrutiny to the evidence, reveals that it lends little credible support to the argument.First of all, the author takes his impression as a representative of all the readers. It is highly possible that the author is the only the one who gets an impression that many competent workers who lost jobs due to downsizing face serious economic hardship, take a few years to find other suitable employment, while other reads with the impression that the workers just want to a job really suit themselves, so they cost a few years to pursue one(这句虽然长但是表述不够清晰，还不如短点好).Sine suffering from lack of any evidence about the article and the words the editor holds, we could not justifiably rely on the one-side word that the editorial gives a mistaken impression.

Secondly, the author quotes some conclusions of a recent survey to support this argument, which has nothing contradicted with the argument. One of these conclusions is that the jobs have been created are far more than the jobs have been eliminated. For this matter, the author assumes that all other conditions that might affect the relationship between job-hunt and job-lose will remain unchanged since 1992. As this matter only demonstrate that there’s more job chance, and did not provide any auspice to the fact that many competent workers would take a few years to get a proper job.

Additionally, the report also cites many job-losers have found new employment. However, perhaps, the job they found is not suitable to them, or perhaps, the job-losers are not the competent workers the author argued. Either scenario, if true, would serve to undermine the author’s claim that many competent workers will find employment in a moment.

Moreover, the author assumes that the employment have been created in industries that tend to pay above-average wages is the one tend to pay above-average wages. Perhaps the newly created jobs are some physical works, such as cleaners, washers, waiters, and so on, which not tend to be paid more. If so, these jobs are not suitable to the competent workers who lost jobs as a result of downsizing face serious economic hardship. As the jobs are mostly full-time, the job-losers do not have the chance to compare the job with others, he will have to choose one without comparison.

To summarize, the author’s argument is based on assumption and unconvincing(unconvincing what?). Without ruling out alternative possibilities for the view he hold that the competent workers will find job quickly, and by the contingent evidence the recent report, the arguer fail to refute the view the editor holds, let alone concluding that the editorial is misleading

点评：
1.       第一个批驳点很新奇，我很少见到从这个角度进行的批驳。我认为这样的批判是否能够用于argument仍然值得商讨。
2.       注意批判的顺序，先批重要的逻辑错误，然后是次要的
3.       在每段的开头最好能指出文中什么地方犯了并且犯了怎样的逻辑错误，是如何犯的。而不要第一句话只是说文中用了什么什么证据，文中哪提到了什么什么，最好第一句中心句就能把问题说清楚。
回拍地址：https://bbs.gter.net/thread-685712-1-1.html

[ 本帖最后由 c0053 于 2007-6-16 14:24 编辑 ]