argument143 [kb9.11] 第2次作业

goldzincUID: 2378390

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.


According to a recent report on the United States economy which shows a better condition of the job market, the arguer find the editor draws a misleading conclusion that many competent workers who lost their jobs as result of downsizing face serious economic hardships for a long time before they get a new employment. However, the report insufficiently lends support to the arguer's counterview in respect that it proved neither the inexistence of economic hardship nor the inexistence of its long duration.

The report indicates that there are more job opportunities since 1992. But no evidence shows that it is those workers who lost their jobs because of downsizing eventually got these job opportunities. There is a great chance that the majority such opportunities are taken by the new graduates because they know more about the expertise of modern technology which is highly demanded in newly created job compared with the unemployed workers, on the contrary, unemployed works tend to find jobs that are similar to their former jobs. It is also possible that a certain proportion of the unemployed worker doesn't manage to get a job at last. Thus, the more job opportunities mean nothing to the jobless workers.

Moreover, neither could the report prove the workers lost their job will find a new one in a short time rather for year as the editor states. The competition in the job market is much more fierce now, and the unemployed workers probably need to be trained before they get a new job and they are consequently less competitive, thus, it is not surprised that they face a great difficulty while finding a new job and it will take them a relatively long time.

Finally, though the newly created jobs seem to pay a higher wage, it cannot solve the problem of the economic hardship before those workers find such a job. Presumably these workers were not pay much at their former jobs; as a result, they don't have a big saving in the bank to make them through the hard time while they are out of job. A new job with good wages will only solve this problem after they find such one, but cannot change the situation of economic hardship before they find it.

In sum, the resent report does not adequately support the arguer's opposition. This support is primarily about an investigation of newly created jobs but not the condition of unemployed workers. Thus, unlike the arguer claimed in his argument, there is no contradiction between this report and the editor's conclusion.

我的用词太幼稚了…平时词汇积累的太少
还是提不起速度来啊

zengmingjoyUID: 2379012

According to a recent report on the United States economy which shows a better condition of the job market, the arguer finds that the editor draws a misleading conclusion that many competent workers who lost their jobs as the result of downsizing face serious economic hardships for a long time before they could get employed again. However, the report is insufficient to support the arguer's counterview in respect that it ignored both the economic hardships that the workers had to face before getting a new job, and the long duration of the economic hardships.

The report indicates that there are more job opportunities since 1992. But no evidence shows that it is those workers who lost their jobs because of downsizing that eventually got these job opportunities. Chances are never slim that the majority of such opportunities are taken by the new graduates because they are better trained of the modern technology which is highly demanded by newly created jobs, which enables them to be much more competitive than the older workers, who tend to find jobs that are similar to their former ones. Therefore, it is possible that a certain proportion of the unemployed workers just don’t manage to get a job at last. The fact of more job opportunities can mean nothing to the jobless workers.
Neither could the report prove that the workers who have lost their job can find a new one in a short time. It is more likely that, as the editor states, the jobless workers happen to be fortunate after years of job-hunting. The competition in the job market is much fiercer after the downsizing; it is rather urgent for the unemployed workers to get necessary trainings in order to get a new job. It is not surprising that it will take a relatively longer time for the unemployed workers to get employed again.

Finally, although the newly created jobs are paid at a higher wage, it cannot solve the problem of the economic hardship before those workers find such a job. Presumably these workers were not paid much at their former jobs; as a result, they don't have a big saving in the bank to make them through the hard time while they are out of job. A new job with good wages will only solve this problem after they find such one, but cannot change the situation of economic hardship before they find it.

In sum, the resent report does not adequately support the arguer's opposition. This report is primarily about an investigation of newly created jobs but not the condition of unemployed workers. Thus, on the contrary of what the arguer claimed in his argument, there is no contradiction between this report and the editor's conclusion.

我是新兵，还不敢看文章结构。
我觉得lz要注意的问题有：时态；will的情态含义；强调句式 it is ... that 里的 that 不要弄丢了；拼写。
加油！

[ 本帖最后由 zengmingjoy 于 2007-8-16 16:47 编辑 ]