Argument143 [Victors小组]coraone 第九次作业

coraoneUID: 2233021

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.


1.不能根据1992年以来的一段时间的报告来做出推导
1）很可能增加的就业机会都集中在头两年，而近几年workers一直面临着岗位的消失
2）好找到高工资的工作的年份是集中在1992年以来的头几年
2.错误因果：有充足的岗位供应给求职者，失业人员可以找到适合自己的工作工作
1）能力无法胜任
2）高于平均水平的工资不代表说符合这些失业工人对于工资的要求（比原来低）
3.即使可以找到适合的工作，但是作者没有说明是否找寻这些工作需要很长时间
1）面临很大竞争，所以需要花很长时间去等待机会
2）很多失业人员找到新工作，作者没有说他们找到新工作花了多长时间


WORDS: 651          TIME: 0:45:00          DATE: 2007-6-16

Merely based on unfounded assumptions and dubious evidence, the author draws a conclusion that it cost a lot time for the workers who lost jobs result from the corporate downsizing to seek other suitable employment. To validate the conclusion, the author cites a recent report on United States economy as evidence to show the optimistical anticipation of the employment. The reasoning seems superficial plausible at first glance, but it all collapses as soon as you have a comprehensive consideration with it. The argument is logically flawed in several critical respects, which render it unpersuasive and groundless.

First and most, it is incredible at all for the author to quota a report on the economy since 1992 up to the present of United States as evidence to up hold the conclusion. The report only displays an overall tendency of the span form 1992. It has no sense when it comes to demonstrate the specific situation of each year. For example, it is true that far more jobs have been created than have been eliminated during this period, but the possibility also cannot be eliminated that the great increased of employment might concentrated on the first several years, after that the workers have faced the shortage of jobs for the left years hitherto. And what a period for job seekers to get a job with satisfied salary in a short time is the past as well, through it is has continued for several years after 1992. If this is the case, the realism casts a shadow over the prospects of success for workers who lost jobs to find new posts. Thus, it is fallacious to draw an conclusion at all in the face of such ungrounded report offered.

In my next analysis, granted that the report is credible, it des not naturally warrant the assertion that more jobs created than the one eliminated, and thus is causal for workers more easily to find other employment suitable for them. First, the redundant job opportunities are whether suitable for the workers who lost jobs for corporate downsizing or not. With the development of technology, more and more jobs need professional skills of workers, if the workers have no suitable knowledge or skills to be competence for these redundant posts, it has no sense for their job seeking.  Second, two-thirds of the newly created jobs, most of them are full-time, with above-average wages do not mean that it could satisfied with the so-called "satisfied" wages of the workers. It is entirely possible that the wages are higher than average wages but much less than they got before.  Therefore, without ruling out these possibilities, the author's assertion is unwarranted.

In my final analyzing, the author still does not clarify whether the workers can get the suitable jobs in short time. The possibility also cannot be excluded that those worker have faced fierce competition from all job seekers, including themselves, the new graduates or even international job seekers. So even if the job opportunities are suitable for them, the quality of the jobs is still a big question for them. When facing a great deal of workers scramble for the limited posts, only the workers who do not get the jobs can do is waiting for the next opportunity. But this might costs a long time. On the other hand, the author points out that many of those who lost their jobs have found new employment, but do not say something about whether these worker got the job in a short time,  not mention the vague word of "many". Accordingly, the author still has no grounded reasons to disprove the article of a national newspaper.

In sum, suffered all these logical failings above, the argument certainly cannot be established. The author should offer more evidence about the current situation about the position of job seeking in United States, and fortify the reason line to up hold the conclusion.

个人觉得自己这篇文章的思路和网路上大多数的思路不大一样，一直强烈地觉得这个report是没有说明意义的。
最近状态不是很好，自我感觉body的第二三段写的有得不是很可以，自己觉得
请帮我看的同学狠拍，虚心听取你的指点！

iq28UID: 2152875

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.

Merely based on unfounded assumptions and dubious evidence, the author draws a conclusion that it cost a lot time for the workers who lost jobs result from the corporate downsizing to seek other suitable employment. （这个是作者要批驳的结论吧？）To validate the conclusion, the author cites a recent report on United States economy as evidence to show the optimistical anticipation of the employment. The reasoning seems superficial plausible at first glance, but it all collapses as soon as you have a comprehensive consideration with it. The argument is logically flawed in several critical respects, which render it unpersuasive and groundless. (这种套话开头应该是最不理想的了，还不如复述下作者的整个思路。)

First and most, it is incredible at all for the author to quota a report on the economy since 1992 up to the present of United States as evidence to up hold the conclusion. The report only displays an overall tendency of the span form 1992. It has no sense when it comes to demonstrate the specific situation of each year. For example, it is true that far more jobs have been created than have been eliminated during this period, but the possibility also cannot be eliminated that the great increased of employment might concentrated on the first several years, after that the workers have faced the shortage of jobs for the left years hitherto. And what a period for job seekers to get a job with satisfied salary in a short time is the past as well, through it is has continued for several years after 1992. If this is the case, the realism casts a shadow over the prospects of success for workers who lost jobs to find new posts. Thus, it is fallacious to draw an conclusion at all in the face of such ungrounded report offered. （大方向上依托时间错误性很好地为下文的一次让步作出铺垫，不错。）

In my next analysis, granted that the report is credible, it des not naturally warrant the assertion that more jobs created than the one eliminated, and thus is causal for workers more easily to find other employment suitable for them. （开头直中要害。） First, the redundant job opportunities are whether suitable for the workers who lost jobs for corporate downsizing or not. With the development of technology, more and more jobs need professional skills of workers, if the workers have no suitable knowledge or skills to be competence for these redundant posts, it has no sense for their job seeking.  Second, two-thirds of the newly created jobs, most of them are full-time, with above-average wages do not mean that it could satisfied with the so-called "satisfied" wages of the workers. It is entirely possible that the wages are higher than average wages but much less than they got before.  Therefore, without ruling out these possibilities, the author's assertion is unwarranted. （bingo的段落）

In my final analyzing, the author still does not clarify whether the workers can get the suitable jobs in short time. The possibility also cannot be excluded that those worker have faced fierce competition from all job seekers, including themselves, the new graduates or even international job seekers. So even if the job opportunities are suitable for them, the quality of the jobs is still a big question for them. （有点糅杂，看不清楚你要攻击作者材料中的哪一步推理。第一句蛮清楚的，后面的部分就有点不知道针对材料的什么部分了呵呵。）When facing a great deal of workers scramble for the limited posts, only the workers who do not get the jobs can do is waiting for the next opportunity. But this might costs a long time. On the other hand, the author points out that many of those who lost their jobs have found new employment, but do not say something about whether these worker got the job in a short time,  not mention the vague word of "many". Accordingly, the author still has no grounded reasons to disprove the article of a national newspaper. （后半部分比较靠谱）

In sum, suffered all these logical failings above, the argument certainly cannot be established. The author should offer more evidence about the current situation about the position of job seeking in United States, and fortify the reason line to up hold the conclusion.

总体来说是一篇相当成功的argument。lz写法和我最近对argument的感悟基本很类似了～我给5分，宏观上前2个段落问题已经不大了。和6分的差距可能就是还缺乏一些让人眼前一亮的东西。

最后道歉for the delayed修改。sorry。