Argument143 【戮力】观点竞争类

地球的小星星UID??2345848

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.

The argument is not cogent because the editor refute the impression that many competent workers lost jobs as a result of downsizing and they face serious economic hardship-on the basis of a recent report on the United States economy, which is lack of specific data and evidence. And I find this argument specious, on several grounds.

First of all, nor does the mere fact that since 1992 far more jobs have been created than have been eliminated lend significant support to show that those competent workers can find suitable employment from the new jobs. It is entirely possible that those newly created jobs are not suitable for the job-seekers. Perhaps the vast majority of these new jobs involve food serving, cleaning and maintenance, and other tasks requiring a low level of skill and experience. While the most downsized job-seekers are highly educated middle-managers looking for the same type of work elsewhere. The point is, the new jobs cannot meet the need of the downsized workers.

Further, since the new jobs may not meet the need of the workers, the fact that two-thirds of the newly created jobs have been in industries that tend to pay above-average wages cannot support the arguer's conclusion. Presumably, most of the people may not get those jobs because they are not in the type of work; or because they are not competent for it. For that matter, the relationship between the job-seekers and the employers in the job market is still imbalanced. Moreover, if population in the country is increased at a fast speed recent years, the two-thirds of the new jobs cannot ease the pressure on the job market.

Finally, what if we consider some important terminology in the argument? For example, what does "many" mean? Does the report have the accurate data to define it? Is it mean that over 80 percent or just 20 percent of the overall downsized workers? If the arguer fails to provide the reasonable statistic data, I can hardly agree on his conclusion.

In sum, the argument is not persuasive as it stands. Before we accept the conclusion, the editor must provide more information about the newly created jobs, the accurate data of those who have found new employment, as well as the current situation in the job market.

正文第二段写得有些奇怪，似乎还是说第一段的事儿，题中那个三分之二怎么用好呢？