argument143 [勇往直前小组] 8.6

高加索UID：2246937

题目：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.
字数：330         用时：00:29:49          日期：2007-8-7 0:17:19

The author claims that the editor's recent article on corporate downsizing in the United States is misleading. To verify the claim, the arguer provides some facts from a recent report on the United States economy. However, the arguer commits several critical flaws.

First of all, the arguer fails to convince us the impression that many competent workers who lost jobs as a result of downsizing face serious economic hardship for years is mistaken. The facts from the recent report cannot convince us to accept such conclusion. Although as the report says, more jobs have been created than have been eliminated, but since there is jobs being eliminated, the downsizing still exists and there should still be workers losing their jobs. The truth that many workers lost their jobs have found new employment is not contradicted with the impression in the editor's article. The editor's claim that those losing jobs workers face economic hardship for years also implies the final employment of them. The other two premises about the wage and work time has nothing to do with the editor’s article, for the reason that those two factors are never discussed in the editor’s article.

Secondly, even if the mistaken impression is granted, it is reckless to reach to the conclusion that the whole article is misleading. Since the article is about the corporate downsizing, the focus of it may be not the workers lost jobs. The article main involves the origin and reason of corporate downsizing, and the solution to it. Perhaps the content about workers unemployed is only a tiny part of the article. So the arguer makes an unfair conclusion that the editor's article is misleading.

In sum, the arguer should provide more evidence to confirm that the impression about the workers lost jobs in the article is mistaken. Meanwhile, only until the part of unemployed worker is demonstrated to be the main and significant one in the article, will the claim of the misleading of it reasonable.

joyceningUID：2314914

"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.字数：330         用时：00:29:49          日期：2007-8-7 0:17:19 The author claims that the editor's recent article on corporate downsizing in the United States is misleading. To verify the claim, the arguer provides some facts from a recent report on the United States economy. However, the arguer commits several critical flaws. First of all, the arguer fails to convince us the impression（？？印象？）that many competent workers who lost jobs as a result of downsizing face serious economic hardship for years is mistaken. The facts from the recent report cannot convince us to accept such a conclusion. Although as the report says, more jobs have been created than have been eliminated, but since there is jobs being eliminated（这句不通顺）, the downsizing still exists and there should still be workers losing their jobs.（这个解释读起来很吃力，不是很明白） The truth that many workers lost their jobs have found new employment is not contradicted with the impression in the editor's article. The editor's claim that those losing jobs workers face economic hardship for years also implies the final employment of them. The other two premises about the wage and work time has nothing to do with the editor’s article, for the reason that those two factors are never discussed in the editor’s article.Secondly, even if the mistaken impression is granted, it is reckless to reach to（去掉）the conclusion that the whole article is misleading. Since the article is about the corporate downsizing, the focus of it may be not the workers lost jobs. The article main involves the origin and reason of corporate downsizing, and the solution to it. Perhaps the content about workers unemployed is only a tiny part of the article. So the arguer makes an unfair conclusion that the editor's article is misleading. In sum, the arguer should provide more evidence to confirm that the impression about the workers lost jobs in the article is mistaken. Meanwhile, only until the part of unemployed worker is demonstrated to be the main and significant one in the article, will the claim of the misleading of it reasonable.

这篇貌似都在驳斥，作者不应该不相信那篇文章。额。。。貌似不应该这么驳斥，不是证明文章是对的，而是说明作者自己提出的观点是有逻辑错误的

[ 本帖最后由 joycening 于 2007-8-8 20:03 编辑 ]