Argument143 【METTLE小组】 第五次作业 by happyhappypig

happyhappypigUID: 2342810

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

35 min

Words: 540

The above objection upon corporate downsizing in the United States seems reasonable. However, the arguer fails to interpret the job market situation today. Neither does he/she provide thorough discussion about people's satisfaction upon their new jobs.

First of all, whether it is true that competent workers should not worry about losing their jobs due to the increasing job positions is open to doubt. The mere fact that far more jobs are created from 1992 is insufficient to guarantee the continue working at original positions. As a matter of fact, myriads of variables should be taken into consideration about continue working. For instance, the development of particular industry, like whether the tape recorders and cassettes might be replaced by emerging CD, DVD or other alternatives, the situation of market competitions, whether the market is already full and the corporate has to downsize specific department to cut the labor costs, or potential updated machines, whether the innovative technologies could provide automachines to do the same jobs in the manufactory companies instead of workers, etc. It is also possible that most of the increased jobs are in entertaining industry or of servicing positions which may not be suitable for workers in the corporate companies. Without evaluation related to the aspects mentioned above, the conclusion that workers should not worry about their jobs is too hasty.

Secondly, the argument rests upon a gratuitous assumption that people who lost their jobs can find new employment, which is unwarranted. Nothing is provided about how long it would take to find a new job, what positions are available or the salary difference between the original job and the new jobs. It is highly likely that in order to find a job, multitudes of people go to certain workshops or training programs, which they pay themselves and put great effort which cannot be mimic by everyone losing job with limited financial support. It might also be the case that even with the new job, due to the different nature of the work, people have to work much harder to earn the salaries less than their previous jobs. Either of the above scenarios, if true, would cause great suspicion upon the potential to find new employment.

Moreover, even if we concede it is not that hard to find a new job, whether people are satisfied with their new positions needs further discussion. The higher paid jobs do not necessary hire people who lost their jobs in the first place. It is highly like that these jobs needs managers to lead a whole group, which would prefer those already have a superior positions and rich working experience. Actually, those suitable candidates are less likely to be unemployed and those who do lose their jobs are either not competent or unqualified. Or perhaps that these jobs are mainly in the IT or media industry which needs people familiar with the most-updated techniques whereas those competent workers might mainly from manufactory (time is up) who are not suitable for the jobs. Lacking information related to the above concerns, it is impossible to make thorough interpretation of today’s job situation.

Taken together, the above argument is not well reasoned as it stands. Unless given specific analysis of the bases of the newly create jobs and the possibility of corporate downsizing, we cannot accept the arguer's assertion.

hejieladyUID: 2282175

The above(后面应再加个动词比较好吧) objection upon corporate downsizing in the United States seems reasonable. However, the arguer fails to interpret the job market situation（两个名次用of连接分开用比较好吧--the situation of job market） today. Neither（用nor比较好吧）does he/she provide thorough discussion about people's satisfaction upon their new jobs.

First of all, whether it is true that competent workers should not worry about losing their jobs due to the increasing job positions is open to doubt. The mere fact that far more jobs are created from 1992 is insufficient to guarantee the continue working at original positions. As a matter of fact, myriads(想知道这个单词什么意思,都查不到呵呵) of variables(这个是不是形容词啊,形容词没有复数形式的吧,OF 后面是不是不加形容词的啊,)should be taken into consideration about continue working. For instance, the development of particular industry, like whether the tape recorders(records就可以了) and (or) cassettes might be replaced by emerging CDs, DVDs(对应比较好) or other alternatives,the situation of market competitions, whether the market(这两句并下)is already full and the corporate(是形容词) has to downsize specific department to cut the labor costs, or potential updated machines, whether the innovative technologies could provide automachines to do the same jobs in the manufactory companies instead of workers, etc(有点乱). It is also possible that most of the increased jobs are in entertaining(ment) industry or of servicing positions which may not be suitable for workers in the corporate companies. Without evaluation(evaluating 或he evaluation of)related to the( 去掉) aspects mentioned above, the conclusion that workers should not worry about their jobsis too hasty.

Secondly, the argument rests upon a gratuitous assumption that people who lost their jobs can find new employment, which is unwarranted. Nothing is provided about how long it would take to find a new job, what positions are available or the salary difference between the original job(s)and the new jobs. It is highly likely that in order to find a job, multitudes of people go to certain workshops or training programs, which they pay themselves and put great effort which cannot be mimic by everyone losing job with limited financial support. It might also be the case that even with the new job, due to the different nature of the work, people have to work much harder to earn the salaries less than their previous jobs. Either of the above scenarios, if true, would cause great suspicion upon the potential to find new employment. (似乎这两段论证的是第一第二段的结合)

Moreover, even if we concede (that) it is not that hard to find a new job, whether people are satisfied with their new positions needs further discussion. The higher paid jobs do not necessary hire people who lost their jobs in the first place. It is highly like that these jobs needs(主谓不致)managers (competent workers不一定就不能是managers啊,而且非常有可能呢)to lead a whole group, which would prefer those already have a superior positions and rich working experience. Actually, those suitable candidates are less likely to be unemployed and those who do lose their jobs are either not competent or unqualified.(这个是主观论断了吧,文章说的是(competent workers呢) Or perhaps that these jobs are mainly in the IT or media industry which needs people familiar with the most-updated techniques whereas those competent workers might mainly from manufactory (time is up) who are not suitable for the jobs. Lacking information related to the above concerns, it is impossible to make thorough interpretation of today’s job situation.

Taken together, the above argument is not well reasoned as it stands. Unless given specific analysis of the bases of the newly create jobs and the possibility of corporate downsizing, we cannot accept the arguer's assertion.

觉得论证方面还可以再加强一些,
你能将论证展开是值得我学习的,还有想请教在35分钟之内完成A是怎么做到的?

strokes7UID: 2262256

路过~~~~~

happyhappypigUID: 2342810

1. 自己记个笔记先，好像我还挺经常用到neither, nor的
网上找来的语法讲解
neither 与nor
a. 如前句是否定式从句，则主句胣either，而不用 nor。
eg. If you don't do it，neither should I.　如果你不干，我也不干。
b. 如后连续有几个否定句式，则用nor，不用neither。
eg. He can't sing，nor dance，nor skate.

But also there are examples like:
1) The first one was not good, neither was the second (one).
第一个不好，第二个也不好。
2) He doesn't smoke neither does he drink.
他既不抽烟也不喝酒。
3) You don't know what to do now, neither/ nor do I .

还有讲解说neither作为副词表示“也不”，常常用于倒装句的开头，紧跟在一个否定句后面（当然nor也可以这么 用）。
所以我觉得貌似neither/nor引导倒装句的时候没有很大区别的说，不过为了防止错误就按照a.b.的区别用好了

2.其实我现在怎么都是觉得时间不够写，除非真的从头写到尾一点都不犹豫的才能勉强写完，很是郁闷呢，而且还有好多typo~~~我哭
3.那个for instance那里好像是有点乱，我想可能分成单个的句子会好一点，太长了就容易乱了，多谢你的修改，很仔细呢
  关于论正方面，呵呵，我也不知道改怎么具体化了，觉得现在写到这个程度时间上控制不了在30分钟以内，再多写也没有什么改进~~~似乎思维堵住了~~~
  不过多谢你的修改，呵呵，一起努力加油:handshake

[ 本帖最后由 happyhappypig 于 2007-6-29 22:36 编辑 ]

hejieladyUID: 2282175

恩,加油,谢谢你的语法分析,我也是,很痛苦时间不能突破,但是听说写到20篇以上应该可以的,所以我们加油吧,可能是现在时间没有集中突破,放假了,集中突破,应该会有很大进步的!