负责的666版主改过的，感动~学习~0906G同主题ARGUMENT143 by 同心砥砺

同心砥砺UID: 2600324

TOPIC: 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.
WORDS: 416          TIME: 00:45:00          DATE: 2009/3/12 22:09:10

At the beginning the author pointed that a recent article gave a mistaken impression, because the impression was contradicted by a recent report. To better explain his/her conclution, the author cited some information in the report. This argument is, at first glance, convincing, but after further reflection, the line of reasoning in this argument lacks credibility.

To begin with, I doubt the validity of the report. The author provided us no more information than that the report is on the US economy. Before we can believe this report, we must clearly know whether this report is authoritative enough. If the report was conducted by a group of students, who made it only to finish their homework, then the report cannot be used to chanllege the standpoint in the original article. Until the author supply some background information about the report, the report can be used to support what he/she maintianed.

In addition, we know from the report that far more jobs have been created than have been eliminated since 1992, but it did not mean that the worker who lost their jobs would easily find a new employment in a short time. Maybe at that time, their was a large mass of students, who just graduated from universities and were looking for jobs as well. The
n the people who lost their jobs would face great competitions. Under this circumstance, it is not strange that it will take a long time to find a new employment, and therefore many workers who lost their jobs face a serious economic hardship.

Last but not least, even assuming that these people could find jobs in a short time, but we cannot be persuaded that these jobs is newly created jobs as the report showing, which paid them above-average wages, and which were full-time. It is entirely possible that the newly created jobs, although paid much, are not fit for the workers, although they are competent, because the new jobs are in different industries, like tertiary industry. So the workers who maybe worked in factories in manufacturing industry before downsizing, have to temporarily find low paid, part-time employment, and consequently always face a economic hardship.

To sum up, the author omitted some substantial information, such as the background of the cited report, the environment of job finding at that time and detailed introduction of the workers and the newly created jobs, so this argument is not convincing, and the author's attack about the original article is also unfounded and dubious.

irvine666UID: 2575525

At the beginning the author pointed (out) that a recent article gave a mistaken impression, because the impression was contradicted by a recent report(两个问题，第一个，这个because+从句实际上是解释上一个从句的，所以这里不应该断句，会造成理解歧义；第二个，从句里面带从句是我不提倡的，这句话可以改为for its contradiction to a recent report). To better explain his/her conclution, the author cited some information in the report. This argument is, at first glance, convincing, but after further reflection, the line of reasoning in this argument lacks credibility(断句有两个作用，一个是为了插入语，一个是为了隔开语气（但是会削弱你的原本的内涵意义），你这句话整个就是一块意思，完全没有必要断句隔开你的意思，举个例子，如果我写：“你，今天吃的，是啥？”是不是很不爽？其实你这个句子也是一样了).

To begin with, I doubt the validity of the report（这个TS可够直接的，不错）. The author provided us no more information than that the report is on the US economy. Before we can believe(trusting) this report, we must clearly know whether this report is authoritative enough. If the report was conducted by a group of students, who made it only to finish their homework(这个属于典型的小概率事件他因，有哪个student会为了一个homework来从92年调查到现在？因此说服力不强), then the report cannot be used to chanllege the standpoint in the original article. Until the author supply some background information(既然你前面提到了authoritative,我觉得这段里面的backgroud是为了批调查的全面性和取样的随机性才对，而不是一小群学生怎么怎么样.) about the report, the report can be used to support what he/she maintianed.

In addition, we know from the report that far more jobs have been created than have been eliminated since 1992, but it did not mean that the worker who lost their jobs would easily find a new employment in a short time(这段是批时间，看你下面怎么发展了). Maybe at that time(指代不明，which time? 你前面仅仅提到过in a short time，但是那个显然不是你这里所要表达的time), their was(他因的时候尽量用might be，be动词表达一种客观存在，而你这个仅仅是推测而已) a large mass of students, who just graduated from universities and were looking for jobs as well. Then the people who lost their jobs would face great competitions.(最大的问题出现了：没有拉回到你的can't find job in a short time,竞争多就能直接说明他们不能短期找到工作么？明显不能，除非你给出足够的理由) Under this circumstance, it is not strange(根据你上面的论述，我觉得还是很strange的...) that it will take a long time to find a new employment, and therefore many workers who lost their jobs face a serious economic hardship.

Last but not least, even assuming that these people could find jobs in a short time, but we cannot be persuaded that these jobs is newly created jobs as the report showing, which paid them above-average wages, and which were full-time(这句话里面问题一堆，首先是基本句法错误,is变are,然后是指代错误，which指代的什么？these jobs还是newly created jobs? them又指代的什么？jobs or wokers? 最后，老实说这个从句要表达个什么意思偶没看懂...). It is entirely possible that the newly created jobs, although paid much, are not fit for the workers, although they are competent（the competent workers不就行了...两个although从句又非并列结构怎么能在一个句子里面出现）, because the new jobs are in different industries, like tertiary industry(这里要多like几个，因为你前面提到的是different industries,不是particular industry). So the workers who maybe worked in factories in manufacturing industry before downsizing, have to temporarily find low paid, part-time employment(这里发散的太远了，这个明显是个人价值实现，虎落平阳的感觉，和经济困难有啥特别强烈的联系么？), and consequently always face a economic hardship.

To sum up, the author omitted some substantial information, such as the background of the cited report, the environment of job finding at that time and detailed introduction of the workers and the newly created jobs, so this argument is not convincing, and the author's attack about the original article is also unfounded and dubious.

同心砥砺UID: 2600324

In this argument, the author have attacked a recent article, since it gives us a misleading impression- many workers who lost jobs as a result of downsizing face long serious economic hardship. To support, the author cites a recent report, which contrarily shows that more jobs have been created, and that many of those who lost their jobs have found new employment. In addition, the author also introduces the detailed information of the newly created jobs. However, further consideraton of his line of reasoning reveals how foundless this argument is.

To begin with, the author has ignored the background of the people who lost their jobs. In original article, the discuss is confined only in the people who lost their jobs as a result of downsizing, which probably means that in these industries, where employees are reduced, new employment can hardly be created any more. However, the report cited by the author shows no more information than that the total number of jobs have increased since 1992. It is entirely possible that the new created jobs are just in other industries, which are dissimilar with the industries mentioned in the article. Thus, a hard situation of finding new employment might come out  for the workers who lost their jobs as the result of downsizing in their original industries. Unless the author provides us more detailed information about the number of newly created and eliminated jobs in every individual industy, we cannot acknowledge that his attact is valid.

In addition, the information that many of those who lose their jobs have found new employment, is too vague. How long would it take for finding a new jobs? If the time for new job finding takes several years, then during this period of job finding they might face a economic hardship for no steady income.

Last but not least, the author's introduction of the newly created jobs cannot prove that all of the unemployed can get a above-average wages. Provided that those people have found new jobs which have existed at all times and are paid normal wages, then economic hardship of those people is inevitable. Or, it is entirely possible that the other one third newly created jobs which are probably paid relatively low wages, have been got by those who lost their jobs, and the two third jobs have mainly been engaged by the undergraduates and new immigrates. In this case, the unemployed would also face economic hardship.

In sum, the author's strike depends on a series of vague information from a report and is therefor unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen, more detailed information are necessary. After all, an unfounded attack itself must be somewhat misleading.