Argument143 by strokes7 考前两天模考

strokes7UID: 2262256

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: 447          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2007-7-29 下午 03:56:54

Syllabus：
B1 第二个调查的可信度，两个调查的时间是否相关
B2 工作机会多不代表下岗的都能找到
B3 下岗和找工作之间总有一段空档，会使人们面临经济困难

In this argument, the arguer claims that the content of the editor's article, which contends that many competent workers who lost jobs face serious economic hardship, is totally wrong, because of the recent report which finds the different situation. The claim appears tenable at the first glance. However, circumspect scrutiny to the ratiocination reveals that the arguer commits several logical fallacies, which render the argument unpersuasive.

To begin with, all the judgment of the arguer relies on a unwarranted recent report on the United States economy. However, we are not informed any evidence to prove the reliability of such report. It is entirely possible that the reporter get a wrong result by his or her study. What is more, the report the arguer relies on is about the economy situation since 1992, but whether it is useful to recent economy of United States is unwarranted. Yet the article of the editor is about the recent economy. It is also possible that these two reports are about economy of different years. Either of the possibilities above is the case, the judgment, that the editor's article is misleading, is weakened.

Moreover, even assuming that the report the arguer relies on is valid, the assertion that no people face economic hardship lack of evidence. The situation of economy in the report is insufficient to prove such assertion. Enough position of job is not equal to the fact that everyone who lost job can find another satisfied job. Perhaps the jobs created since 1992 are not fit for the person who lost jobs.. Or perhaps the full-time jobs are all for the employees who are just graduated from the universities. Consequently, without specific information to prove that all people who lost job can find a new job, the arguer cannot confidently make his or her assertion.

Finally, even if we concede that everyone could find a satisfying job after they lost job, it is unfair to conclude that these people never face the economic hardship. There is no information about how long these people find another job after they lost their previous job. If they find another job after a long period of time, during which they must face tremendous hardship because they are out of incoming. Unless proving that these people found job as soon as they lost their job, hardly can the arguer conclude that they never face economy hardship.

Taken together, fallacies mentioned above make the argument groundless and unreasonable. To bolster his or her conclusion, the arguer has to provide more information about the report to prove its validity. Additionally, the arguer needs to prove that everyone after lost job could find another job before they faced economy hardship.