argument143 [0710G +U小组] warlock第三次作业

warlockUID: 2364623

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.



        
In this letter, the author tends to oppose the claim, by the editor of a national newspaper, that many competent workers lost their jobs due to downsizing, and did not escape from the depression until they find other suitable employment. To support the opposition, the author cites a recent report filled with these proofs: First, far more jobs have been created than have been eliminated since 1992; second, many people who have their jobs lost have gained their new vocation. After a prudent study, however, we may see the author's assertion is open to doubt.

Firstly, the author ignores the doubt that whether the newly created jobs suit the people who have downsized by corporations. Maybe these newly created jobs belong to the realm of jobs requiring little knowledge or proficiency or experience such as cleaning and pushing box, while, on the other side, the job seekers are highly educated. It is evident that the job seeker have little interest or have little enthusiasm in these so called "new opportunity", therefore they still stay at home to search a more appropriate one. In a result, economic hardship companies them.

Secondly, the author fails to indicate the exactly mean of "many". Maybe, the total number of the jobs seeker is so innumerable that only a small proportion represents a huge group. Further more, those who find a job are NOT in accordance with those who lead a abundant life. Then we can draw no conclusion about the impact of corporation downsizing on the job seekers.

In sum, the author's opposition is built on a non-consolidating foundation that lack strong evidence to refute the claim by the editor. To strength his point, the author should provide us with enough evidence, together with the exactly number of the jobseeker who have found new employment, to show the relation between the workers, who have lost jobs during the downsizing time, and the newly created jobs.

ddbearUID: 2275294

In this letter, the author tends to oppose the claim, by the editor of a national newspaper, that many competent workers lost their jobs due to downsizing, and did not escape from the depression until they find other suitable employment. To support the opposition, the author cites a recent report filled with these proofs: First, far more jobs have been created than have been eliminated since 1992; second, many people who have their jobs lost have gained their new vocation. After a prudent study, however, we may see the author's assertion is open to doubt.

Firstly, the author ignores the doubt that whether the newly created jobs suit the people who have downsized by corporations. Maybe these newly created jobs belong to the realm of jobs requiring little knowledge or proficiency or experience such as cleaning and pushing box, while, on the other side, the job seekers are highly educated. It is evident that the job seeker have little interest or have little enthusiasm in these so called "new opportunity", therefore they still stay at home to search a more appropriate one. In a result [As a result?], economic hardship companies them.[后面是them，谓语需要三单不？我不确定~]

Secondly, the author fails to indicate the exactly mean of "many". Maybe, the total number of the jobs seeker is so innumerable that only a small proportion represents a huge group. Further more, those who find a job are NOT in accordance with those who lead a abundant life[这句应该统一成复数]. Then[用Otherwise如何？] we can draw no conclusion about the impact of corporation downsizing on the job seekers.[最好不要用第一人称，参考范文的句式]

In sum, the author's opposition is built on a non-consolidating foundation that lack strong evidence to refute the claim by the editor. To strength his point, the author should provide us with enough evidence, together with the exactly number of the jobseeker who have found new employment, to show the relation between the workers, who have lost jobs during the downsizing time, and the newly created jobs.

[ 本帖最后由 ddbear 于 2007-7-27 23:16 编辑 ]

ddbearUID: 2275294

1.开头和结尾2段很精彩，也很条理~保持！
2.你的第二个论点，我不能说不对，但是总感觉力度不够。建议学习下北美范文给的7个常见错误，参考那个找毛病~
补：3.惊喜的发现，北美范文143这篇，前2条竟然和你找的一样！——呵呵，是我眼拙了~
不过，它的many那块，还是和你的有点不同……

warlockUID: 2364623

我觉得在某一篇文章中的逻辑错误大家是都能看出来的。不过写其中的几个错误那是见仁见智了。
这篇argu还有个错误在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，我觉得不好攻击，就没有写。呵呵