ARGUMENT143 求拍！

G考小冰UID: 2601548

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：417
用时：00:50:00
日期：2009-3-11 10:27:45

报道：1.1992年以来工作增加的比减少的多

2.许多失去工作的人已经找到新的工作

3.2/3的新工作存在与工业，比平均工资高，全职

反驳：1.这个报道本身令人怀疑，因为缺乏具体信息

2.工作增加比减少多不代表那些有能力的人可以找到适合的工作，比如一些低薪单靠体力的工作的增加并不能解决有能力的技术人员的工作问题

3.many过于模糊，而且也没有说多久找到

4.在工业的工作机会增加也不代表可以解决有能力的人的工作  工资比平均高并不代表能达到那些有能力人的工资要求

反驳：1.增加的工作机会比减少的多，不代表那些有能力的工人可以立刻找到新的工作。

2.许多失去工作的人找到新工作，这一点不与article矛盾，因为report没有指出好久才找到工作。
3.report所说的工作条件，例如高薪全天，并不能说明会适合competent workers。


Merely based on a recent report, and its results on the United States economy, the arguer made a conclusion that the article on corporate downsizing, of which main ideas focus on many competent workers who lost jobs as a result of downsizing is misleading. However, it seems that the arguer either believed in an report without giving concrete information about its organizer, or incorrectly assumed contradiction between facts presented in the report and impression made by the article. Thus, questions in the argument are actually illegitimate.

To begin with, the report itself might be problematic in several aspects. The arguer didn't offer any information about report, and I even don't have any idea who conducted the report. Thereby, whether the report is authoritative or not is unknown, nor does we know whether it biased or not. Suffering these pointed questions toward it, the report that the arguer cited is not grounds for believing.

Given that the report is telling the truth, its results still would not be a sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the article gives the mistaken impression. The report says that since 1992 far more jobs have been created than have been eliminated, thus the arguer assumed downsizing actually doesn't exist. However, the arguer failed to figure out what kind of jobs has been created and what kind of jobs has been eliminated. If jobs given low salary and required only for physical labor are increased while jobs offered high salary but asked for highly level of advanced scholarly attainment, which is more satisfied with competent works, are facing reduced, then the surplus jobs could not supplemented those requirements by the competent works. The reasoning above also fits for destroying the "above-average wages" saying which is presented as an evidence for argument.

Moreover, statistics on the report, for example "many", are too vague to believe its reliability. It is totally unpersuasive to judge whether competent works are facing a downsizing hardship before they find other suitable employment, according to the report that many of those who lost their jobs have found new employment. Regardless of its vague statistic, however, the reasoning which sounds in a general sense could not be a representative for special groups of people who are competent in works. Thereby, the arguer's assertion is ill-founded.

To sum up, the argument is not persuasive as it stands. To better his or her conclusion, the arguer needs more information about the report firstly, including who conducted the report and whether it is biased or not.

irvine666UID: 2575525

Merely based on a recent report, and its results on the United States economy, the arguer made a conclusion that the article on corporate downsizing, of which main ideas(这个...相当怪异...仅仅是为了表达所有格在从句前面加of...) focus on many competent workers who lost jobs as a result of downsizing（这里要断句，说明插入语已经结束了） is misleading. However, it seems that the arguer either believed in an report without giving concrete information about its organizer, or incorrectly assumed contradiction between facts presented in the report and impression made by the article. Thus, questions in the argument are actually illegitimate(非法的，而且是illeg词根，这个词程度相当重，非罪犯或者法院令状不能用，用在这里涉嫌人身攻击).(首段可以看出作者要攻击两个东西：1. insufficient information about organizer(应该属于质疑权威性一类的了～)，2.incorrect assumption.接下来看看作者有没有developed them)

To begin with, the report itself might be problematic in several aspects(第一段你只点出了organizer的方面，这里怎么又抛出several aspects?). The arguer didn't offer any information about report, and I even don't have any idea (of) who conducted the report.(有关权威性的批驳呢？仅仅提到不知道是谁conduct就能说明这个survey的不权威么？不知道就说明不存在，按照这个逻辑批，很肤浅。举个例子：我不知道地球的形成过程，我就能说明地球根本不存在么？至少要拿出几个原因来吧) Thereby, whether the report is authoritative or not(参照我对上一句的评论) is unknown, nor does we know whether it biased or not(这个就更属于无根据猜想了...前面完全没有提到过biased,这里突然就冒出来一个). Suffering these pointed questions toward it, the report that the arguer cited is not grounds for believing.(第一个论点段看来，是没有有效的支持你的TS滴，更不用说批驳作者的观点了)

Given that the report is telling(时态) the truth, its results still would not be a sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the article gives the mistaken impression. The report says that since 1992 far more jobs have been created than have been eliminated, thus the arguer assumed downsizing actually doesn't exist(author真的这么说过？没看出来。他只是在说就业形势不错而已啊...). However, the arguer failed to figure out what kind of jobs has been created and what kind of jobs has been eliminated. If jobs given low salary(这个是站不住脚的，后面有说过2/3，仔细读题) and required only for physical labor(这个也不好，感觉你在歧视体力劳动者似的，我觉得这里最好集中于更 “适合能力” 的工作才对) are increased while 【jobs offered high salary but asked for highly level of advanced scholarly attainment, which is more satisfied with competent works, are facing reduced】（这么大一段全是在作为一个while从句，看的累，不如分成单独的一句）, then the surplus jobs could not supplemented(前面都有could了...) those requirements by the competent works.(这里的then...也有问题，前面你仅仅是在对比两种可能的工作的数量和质量，并没有提到工人怎么样，怎么就突然then到满足(工人的)需求上了？) The reasoning above also fits for destroying the "above-average wages" saying which is presented as an evidence for argument.(画蛇添足的一句，这句话不是为了补充，而是为了显示你当时的思维混乱...要批，就拿出来单独批，这两个reasoning根本也不是一回事...)

Moreover, statistics on the report, for example "many", are too vague to believe(这里要被动语态) its reliability. It is totally unpersuasive to judge whether competent works(workers) are facing a downsizing hardship before they find other suitable employment, according to the report that many of those who lost their jobs have found new employment.(totally unpersuasive我倒是没看出来，不过看出来了你这句长句里面，没有提到任何与statistics有关的东西...这个statistics unpersuasive怎么就推出来的...) Regardless of(额，中心句不是说的很明白么，这段是批statistics的，你就应该从始至终的批statistics啊，怎么又到了regardless of了...那你后面到底要说什么？或者你后面说的到底要支持个什么论点？) its vague statistic, however, the reasoning which sounds in a general sense could not be a representative for special groups of people who are competent in works. Thereby, the arguer's assertion is ill-founded.

To sum up, the argument is not persuasive as it stands. To better his or her conclusion, the arguer needs more information about the report firstly, including who conducted the report and whether it is biased or not.