argument143--by mingzi12390

mingzi12390UID: 2559903

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.


Based on a recent study on the economy, the author concludes that the article of a national newspaper on corporate downsizing in the United States is misleading. Although the conclusion seems sound at fisrst glance, ther are some difficulties in the evidence weakening the validity of the conclusion.

First, the argument is weakened by the fact it does not take into account the possible difference between jobs lost and jobs created. It is at least likely that since 1992 jobs that have been provided are not the kinds that these competent workers lost. Common sense tells us that not all jobs are suitable to any workers who lose jobs and not all workers are competent in any fields. That is , if the kinds of the jobs provided are not the ones workers lost, it is entirely possible that these workers who lost jobs can not get employment in a short time.

Furthermore, even assuming these workers can find jobs that are correspondent with their majors, the lasting time during which they find a job is open to doubt. It mabe spends workers one year in finding a job, or maybe it costs them several years before getting a new job. If these are the cases, the conclusion that the fact --many competent workers who lost jobs often for years before finding a job- is misleading will be groundless.

In addition, no information about what fraction of these people who found jobs in the total number of the workers who lost jobs is provided. The number of people who found jobs maybe is 100, or 1000, which can both defined as “many”, and if the fundamental number is 20,000 of the lay-offs, it is hard for us to believe that conclusion is not misleading.

And the author unfairly assumes that the new jobs worker have been found must be “suitable” employment. What kinds of jobs is suitable? Thousand people may have thousand answers. Some workers may regard a decent-paying job as a sutiable one, some people may believe a part-time job as suitable although this kind of job may have lower pays, and even some one may emphasis on the satisfication brought on by the jobs. If the final explanation is true, the fact provided by the author that the vast majority of these jobs are full-time would be weakened as an evidence to substatiate the conclusion. Even if the suitable employment indicates higher payments, the evidence provided by the author that two-thirds of newly created jobs have been in industries that tend to pay above-average wages is a poor proof. Without the complete information about the former level of payment and the exact number of above-average wages, it is most likely that the level of payment of workers who lost their jobs many times the above-average wages.

In a word, bases on a study full of imcomplete information, the argument is invalid as it stands. Before conclusion are reached, about the basic number of workers who lost jobs and who have been found new jobs should be made. Also, more information about suitable jobs are needed. After all, without enough evidence to substatiate the conclusion that the article is misleading could be the same misleading.

irvine666UID: 2575525

Based on a recent study on the economy, the author concludes that the article of a national newspaper on corporate downsizing in the United States is misleading. Although the conclusion seems sound at fisrst glance, ther are some difficulties in the evidence weakening the validity of the conclusion.

First, the argument is weakened by the fact (宾语从句要加that) it does not take into account (that) the possible difference between jobs lost and jobs created. (从TS看来这段应该是要批job的质量区别了)It is at least likely that since 1992 jobs that have been provided are not the kinds that these competent workers lost. Common sense tells us that not all jobs are suitable to any workers who lose jobs and not all workers are competent in any fields. That is , if the kinds of the jobs provided are not the ones workers lost(这个从句的意思跟前面重复了), it is entirely possible that these workers who lost jobs can not get employment in a short time.(从后的论述来看，实际上你这段是要批什么样的工作更加适合失业人员，尤其是最后提到了in a short time, 因此不应当在TS里把重点放在job上，而是应当从在失业人员角度来看job。IN ADDITION,你下文的让步也是从失业人员的角度来让步这一段的。)

Furthermore, even assuming these workers can find jobs that are correspondent(corresponding) with their majors, the lasting time during which(这里的表达不对，用how long could+) they find a job is open to doubt. (TS后缺少更详细的论述直接跳到可能性会削弱你的文章说服力)It mabe spends workers one year in finding a job, or maybe it costs them several years before getting(to get) a new job. If these are the cases, the conclusion that the fact --many competent workers who lost jobs often for years before finding a job- is misleading will be groundless. (这一段属于典型的开头TS+2个可能性+结尾的模式，这种模式是不可能将一个问题说的清楚的。换句话说，按照这个逻辑，我随便找2个其他可能性就能够否定掉一切的存在？)

In addition, no information about what fraction of these people who found jobs in the total number of the workers who lost jobs is provided. The number of people who found jobs maybe is 100, or 1000, which can both defined as “many”, and if the fundamental number is 20,000 of the lay-offs, it is hard for us to believe that conclusion is not misleading. (这个就太夸张了，文章里面不是说了是far-more的么？)

And the author unfairly assumes that the new jobs worker have been found must be “suitable” employment. What kinds of jobs is suitable? Thousand people may have thousand answers. 【Some workers may regard a decent-paying job as a sutiable one, some people may believe a part-time job as suitable although this kind of job may have lower pays, and even some one may emphasis on the satisfication brought on by the jobs】（这段话，感觉就是在写Issue...我觉得A里面还是不要出现这种你自己都拿不定到底是什么情况的分析出来，会显得你思维很混乱）. If the final explanation is true, the fact provided by the author that the vast majority of these jobs are full-time would be weakened as an evidence to substatiate the conclusion. Even if the suitable employment indicates higher payments(你这个是让步让的哪句话来着...前面不是一直在笼统的定义什么是最适合的工作么，并没有明确的提出薪水问题吧), the evidence provided by the author that two-thirds of newly created jobs have been in industries that tend to pay above-average wages is a poor proof. Without the complete information about the former level of payment and the exact number of above-average wages, it is most likely that the level of payment of workers who lost their jobs many times the above-average wages. (这一段，感觉作者没有围绕着你TS里面的suitable来批，前半段的论述提出了大量他人的观点，然而却没有提出你自己的看法；后半段则是完全围绕着“有的工作不能给高薪”这个问题来批，没有半点提到suitable.算是整个偏掉)

In a word, bases on a study full of imcomplete information, the argument is invalid as it stands. Before conclusion are reached, about the basic number of workers who lost jobs and who have been found new jobs should be made. Also, more information about suitable jobs are needed. After all, without enough evidence to substatiate the conclusion that the article is misleading could be the same misleading.