argument143 [kb9.11] 第12次作业

prophetluoUID: 2240098

The conclusion that the recent article ofnational newspaper on corporate downsizing in the United States was misleading seemsat first glance to be a convinced notion. To support the conclusion, the authorpresents the perspective that the article gives mistaken impression which wascontradicted by a recent report on the United States economy. In addition,the author pointed that the report demonstrated that many of people who losttheir jobs have been eliminated. After a careful examination of this argumentwould reveal how groundless this conclusion is.

In the first place, the argument is base onan incredible perspective of the article of national newspaper. Firstly, theauthor demonstrated that many competent workers lost jobs because of downsizingwhat makes me confuse is that if those workers are more competitive than otherswhy they lost their job. So those so called competent workers may be someonefabricated by the author himself or herself. Secondly, any further predictionshould be made until the author provide further evidence to justify that thoseworker absolutely spent several years on finding a job, because we  have good reason to question that whetherthey want a rest or whether their money is sufficient for their living.Thirdly, there is no evidence have been provided to clarify that whether thisimpression is representative of the public voice or just the slogan of theauthor. In a nutshell, this perspective or impression to the article may be notexist but fabricated by the author himself or herself.  

In the second place, the report form United Stateseconomy was unconvinced. Commonsense teach us that due to the population bulge,more and more people rush into the job market in order to pursue a good job,however the report just pointed that more jobs had been created than had beeneliminated what can not be informative without concerning the increase numberof people who need a job to earn a living. The amount of people is not stablethat there is no one joins in the army of hunting a job, maybe this number isfar bigger than the jobs provided. Secondly, more evidence should be suppliedto justify the workers who found their new jobs would work in that companyconstantly. Without maintain any words concerning the long-term contrast ofthose workers, we may hold on an opinion that those workers would lost their ina few month or they just was employed for few weeks.

In the third place, the author simplyequates the full-time job with high income. Even if we accept that thoseworkers gained a constant job after they lost their original jobs, it is stillunwarranted to get this hasty conclusion that they have found the suitable jobsone of whose standards is proper salary fit for their aptitude. Commonsenseteach us that jobs in those companies which paid above-average wages varysharply, may be those abject workers got the lowest salary job which evenfurther worse than original jobs in those companies. So as to full-time jobs,people who get a full-time job may be paid not good or not fit for theirworking abilities and experiences.

To sum up, this argument suffers from severalfallacies. To better support the notion a survey about the impression of thearticle should be carry out. To strength the argument more evidence concerningthe detail information of the newly employed workers who had lost their jobsshould be provided.