argument143 勇往直前小组

zhangjing106UID：2157010

In this letter, the point of the arguer is based on the contents of the recent report on the United States economy. However, after carefully exam the letter, I find several flaws in the argument, as discusses below.

The arguer does not provide any detailed information about the recent report, such as data or conclusions. Without exact evidences, I am not sure that the contents of the report are correct to be cited. Even if the report is scientific, the arguer should not draw the conclusion that the article on corporate downsizing in the United States is misleading. In order to support his points, the speaker tries to argue from three aspects. However, these evidences are not persuasive at all.

Firstly, the evidence that since 1992 far more jobs have been created than have been eliminated does not directly induce that many competent workers who lost jobs could find other suitable employment soon. We know that there are a lot of universities students graduate and go into society to find jobs. Compared with university students, competent workers have some inferior positions such as ages, abilities and major knowledge. Besides graduated students, there are many other people compete with these workers for created jobs, such as professional engineers or more capable workers. The arguer is wrong to assume that more job have been created than have been eliminated means these new jobs offer to the unemployment workers ignoring other competitors.

Secondly, although the arguer cites the sports demonstrates that many of those workers have found new employments, he does not provide the period from these workers lose jobs to find employments. It is possible that these workers take years to find new suitable employments. Or perhaps the new jobs do not so fit to these workers at all that they are fired soon after they find jobs. Therefore, such evidence does not support the arguer's conclusion that those competent workers always spend years to find other suitable employments.

Thirdly, the evidences that two-third 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 might means nothing to these unemployed workers. Perhaps the workers do not have ability to get these opportunities of high wages, because of strict requests about ages, knowledge and positions. Unless the arguer points out clearly that these newly created jobs are offered for these competent workers who lost jobs, such evidence could not prove that the article's conclusion is mistake, either.

In summary, three aspects provided by the arguer to support his points are not persuasive at all. The arguer should give detailed information further more, such as the whole situation of job markets and number of people who search for new jobs.