Argument138 [METTLE小组第五次作业] by hejielady

hejieladyUID: 2282175

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."

The statement of the letter seems sound at the first blush. A further analysis nevertheless indicating that it is unreasonable to take for granted that the impression of the recent article on corporate downsizing in the United States is misleading, and is contradicted on the report on the United States economy. In other words, the letter suffers from some illogical problems, which would render it from convincing us as it states.

Firstly, the argument of the letter is based on the recent report on the United States economy, which is lacking of necessary statistics and data, to prove the authentic and accurate of the report. Therefore, by comparing to the report, the arguer cannot surely claim that the article is misleading.

Secondly, given that the report is the scientific truth, it is also possible that the chances for those competent laid-off workers to get a new job are remote. If the population of the nation growth (and it always occurs), in spite of the fact that far more jobs have been created than have been eliminated, the number of employees would increase at the same time, which will probably prevent them from being employed. Thus, without ruling out this and other possible reasons may serve the employment, the arguer cannot convince us that more jobs have been left for the unemployed.   .

Thirdly, the report demonstrates that many of those who lost their jobs have found new employment, nonetheless, among those people may not include that many competent workers of the article. Even if those people did get a new job, the report fails to show how long people spent on finding a new job, and whether the job is suitable for them, both of which are essential to refute the statement of the article. The report contains no such evidence that weakened arguer's argument.


Finally, the report rested on the consumption that two-thirds of the newly created jobs have been in industries that tend to pay above-average wages. There is no evidence in the report to prove that the competent workers are in the two-thirds. With the highly development of science and technique, employers would not be able to employ workers whose acquired technical is washed out. Moreover, even though they are in, and the wages are higher than the average ones, they may still face serious economic hardship. The level of people's life may improved, the increase wages may not compete with the purchase power. Hereon, the arguer cannot confidently to alert that the article is contradicted the statement of the report.

Based on the analysis of all those illogical and unreasonable evidence, the arguer cannot safely draw the conclusion of which is claimed in the letter on the basis of the report. To strengthen the argument, the author should present sufficient details and investigate scientific statistics, and ponder every possible factor that may leads to the employment.


[ 本帖最后由 hejielady 于 2007-6-26 17:09 编辑 ]

happyhappypigUID: 2342810

The statement of the letter seems sound at the first blush. A further analysis nevertheless indicating that it is unreasonable to take for granted that the impression of the recent article on corporate downsizing in the United States is misleading, and or? is contradicted on the report on the United States economy. In other words, the letter suffers from some illogical problems, which would render it from convincing us as it states.

Firstly, the argument of the letter is based on the recent report on the United States economy, which is lacking of (lacks of?) necessary statistics and data, to prove the authentic and accurate of the report. Therefore, by comparing to the report, the arguer cannot surely claim that the article is misleading.我觉得如果你只是想提一下report的问题，可以和下面一段和在一起写。

Secondly, given that the report is the scientific truth 感觉有点累赘, 就说valid好了，我觉得ts简洁一点的好, it is also possible that the chances for those competent laid-off workers to get a new job are remote这个词用的有待商榷.ts指出错误的吧，上来就说可能性感觉有点唐突If the population of the nation growth (and it always occurs), in spite of the fact that far more jobs have been created than have been eliminated, the number of employees would increase at the same time, which will probably prevent them from being employed. Thus, without ruling out this and other possible reasons may serve the employment, the arguer cannot convince us that more jobs have been left for the unemployed. 我自己写的时候完全忘了poplulation这回事了，嗬嗬，不错。

Thirdly, the report demonstrates that many of those who lost their jobs have found new employment, nonetheless, among those people may not include that many competent workers of the article. 这个ts写得有点不清楚，感觉你的ts总是有一点分析的成分在，或者分成两句，一个ts指出错误，跟着一句分析怎么样？Even if those people did get a new job, the report fails to show how long people spent on finding a new job, and whether the job is suitable for them, both of which are essential to refute the statement of the article. The report contains no such evidence that weakened arguer's argument.貌似可以再展开一点哦，呵呵


Finally, the report rested on the consumption (presumption? )that two-thirds of the newly created jobs have been in industries that tend to pay above-average wages. There is no evidence in the report to prove that the competent workers are in the two-thirds. 这个包括不包括在第一段的怀疑证据里面呢，如果包括就可以不再提了吧~~~With the highly development of science and technique感觉好像读着不通~~~, employers would not be able to employ workers whose acquired technical is washed out. Moreover, even though they are in, and the wages are higher than the average ones, they may still face serious economic hardship. The level of people's life may improved, the increase wages may not compete with the purchase power. Hereon, the arguer cannot confidently to alert that the article is contradicted the statement of the report.感觉好像不是这段说明不contradict而是整篇文章都不contradict

Based on the analysis of all those illogical and unreasonable evidence, the arguer cannot safely draw the conclusion of which is claimed in the letter on the basis of the report. To strengthen the argument, the author should present sufficient details and investigate scientific statistics, and ponder every possible factor that may leads to the employment.

感觉你的文章读着不是很清楚哦，有的句子有点厂，读着有点 lost
总体来说批驳的点很准确，分析也ok.是不是整体布局再完善一点会更好？
嗬嗬，感觉我的argument退步了，不知道怎么弄得，而且感觉时间总是不够用~~~汗
加油加油