Argument143 自己修改了一下，还是觉得很难写，请高手拍拍啊

菲子UID: 2311527

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.
WORDS: 420          TIME: 0:46:50          DATE: 2007-6-13

The arguer claims that the downsizing in the United States is not as serious as the national newspaper once mentioned. It seems logical at the first glance, but the argument mistakenly equals more jobs since 1992 to no downsizing in the United States.

The first flaw of this argument is that the more jobs since 1992 does not necessarily means that there is no downsizing. The arguer claims that more jobs are created in industries that tend to pay above-average wages, but s/he fails to show the employment in companies cannot afford high wages. Even though industries that tend to pay higher wages created new jobs, it is possible that other corporate downsizes a lot, contributing to the downsizing in the market. It is common that small companies which cannot give high wages are likely to downsizing. If it is the point, although more jobs are created, downsizing may still exist.

Even though there are many new jobs, it does not necessarily mean that competent workers can find new jobs soon after being fired. The report only shows increment in the amount of the jobs since 1992, but fails to show the amount of new workers. It is possible that since1992, there were far more students graduating from universities began to find jobs. It is equally possible there are many immigrants going to the United States in recent year who also need jobs. Both of them may lead to the unemployment of workers working in those corporations previously. Without more information concerning the number of the new workers, it is hard to judge whether the unemployment is serious since 1992.

Another flaw is that the arguer does not consider how long for those who lost their jobs to find new employment. According to the arguer, the article in the national newspaper mentioned that competent workers look for jobs for many years. It is possible that the downsizing in the United States has last for years, and those workers have looked for jobs for many years, and got new jobs in recent years. It is also possible that those who got new jobs often change jobs since the jobs are not suitable for them. In that case, even though they got new jobs, the jobs are unstable and the workers might lose jobs again.

To sum up, the arguer mistakenly treats the newly created jobs since 1992 as the sign that there is no downsizing in the United States.

[ 本帖最后由 菲子 于 2007-6-21 23:51 编辑 ]

baiyu_2005UID: 2255194

The arguer claims that the downsizing in the United States is not as serious as the national newspaper once mentioned. It seems logical at the first glance, but the argument mistakenly equals more jobs since 1992 to no downsizing in the United States.明白你给我批改的时什么意思了，就是不用复述原文内容了是吧
The first flaw of this argument is that the more jobs since 1992 does not necessarily means that there is no downsizing. The arguer claims that more jobs are created in industries that tend to pay above-average wages, but s/he fails to show the employment in companies cannot afford high wages. Even though industries that tend to pay higher wages created new jobs, it is possible that other corporate downsizes a lot, contributing to the downsizing in the market. It is common that small companies which cannot give high wages are likely to downsizing. If it is the point, although more jobs are created, downsizing may still exist. 文章没说downsizing会消失，只是说因downsizing失业的会好找工作的。

Even though there are many new jobs, it does not necessarily mean that competent workers can find new jobs soon after being fired. The report only shows increment in the amount of the jobs since 1992, but fails to show the amount of new workers. It is possible that since1992, there were far more students graduating from universities began to find jobs. It is equally possible there are many immigrants going to the United States in recent year who also need jobs. Both of them may lead to the unemployment of workers working in those corporations previously. Without more information concerning the number of the new workers, it is hard to judge whether the unemployment is serious since 1992.

Another flaw is that the arguer does not consider how long for those who lost their jobs to find new employment. According to the arguer, the article in the national newspaper mentioned that competent workers look for jobs for many years. It is possible that the downsizing in the United States has last for years, and those workers have looked for jobs for many years, and got new jobs in recent years. It is also possible that those who got new jobs often change jobs since the jobs are not suitable for them. In that case, even though they got new jobs, the jobs are unstable and the workers might lose jobs again.

To sum up, the arguer mistakenly treats the newly created jobs since 1992 as the sign that there is no downsizing in the United States.结尾也这么简单？嘿嘿，看例文没看到这么写的

菲子UID: 2311527

The arguer claims that the downsizing in the United States is not as serious as the national newspaper once mentioned and that those who lost job did not face serious economic hardship. It seems logical at the first glance, but the argument mistakenly equals more jobs since 1992 to no downsizing in the United States and also neglects other factors that might lead to economic hardship.

To begin with, the arguer does not agree that many unemployed suffered downsizing face serious economic hardship, since many new jobs are created since 1992, the majority of which are full-time and with above-average wages. However, s/he neglects those companies that cannot afford high wages. Even if many powerful companies offer new jobs with high wages, there is a great chance that some small companies face a great problem of downsizing. It can be more difficult for the workers fired by small companies to find a new job, even if they may be very competent.

More over, the arguer unfairly assumes that those who losing jobs will not face serious economic problems for there are more jobs created since 1992. It seems logical at first, but the arguer fails to consider the supply of labors. It is possible that since 1992, there were far more students graduating from universities or many immigrants willing to find jobs. Assumed that there are 1,000,000 new workers compared to only 300,000 new jobs, a great number of them still could not find new jobs. Therefore, unless the arguer provides enough information of the new labors, the argument will not be accepted.

Another flaw is that the arguer does not provide enough information of those who find jobs. Even if many of them find new jobs, but what about others who does not? It is possible that there are 1,000,000 workers lose jobs with 300,000 of them find new one. 300,000 can also mean many, but the rest 700,000 can never be ignored. Further, according to the arguer, the article in the national newspaper mentioned that competent workers look for jobs for many years. It is possible that the downsizing in the United States has last for years, and those workers having got new jobs in recent years have looking for jobs for many years. It is also possible that those who got new jobs often change jobs since the jobs are not suitable for them. It might be easier for them to find new jobs than those who fired by the companies. Thus, more information are needed to demonstrate that whether most of the unemployed can find jobs not very difficult.

To sum up, the arguer mistakenly treats the newly created jobs since 1992 as the sign that those who losing jobs will not face serious economic hardship.

请多指教咯