0906G同主题Argument143，pan1986

pan1986UID: 2545438

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: 392 TIME: 00:35:00 DATE: 2009-3-15 22:18:52

With this argument the author concluded that article on corporate downsizing in the United States is misleading. The authors that cite a recent report on the United States economy to support his conclude. For these cases that author to assert the corporate downsizing was misleading, yet it not convincing me to agree with author's conclude.

To begin with, the author not provide clear evidence to explain whether authority and representativeness for the moment US economic. This is nowhere more ridiculous than unreasonable to assume the report was very exactly. For the report only has the result for from 1992, and not mentioned before it. To be sure, if assumption before 1992 the status entirely the opposite of the after 1992 that will eliminate the persuasive for the cite report which in most extent. If he author can't convincing me to believe this report that contain of report were not lose mean for this argument.

Secondly, that is presumptuous to judge the article is mislead according to since 1992 far more jobs have been created than have been eliminated. While the more jobs have created than eliminated, we should to conclude that the company to reduce or stop downsized. It is entirely possible the amount of jobs eliminate very few, and the partly of newly create jobs more than eliminate that insufficient to supplement the all jobless can find new job.

Thirdly, the report to point out that many of those who lost their jobs has found new employment. Yet, this is not to say that people have found suitable job for self. The saying is used to point out that people might change the job which in recent. In a not dissimilar way that can't illustrate the company to stop or cut layoff.

Finally, there is no evidence to suggest that industry to provide above-average wages which illustrate the other company were not or cut layoff, and people can immediately to found a suitable job for self. Deep down, although most of these newly created jobs are full-time that was not to illustrate the unemployed will to find other suitable job which in short term.

In a word, the argument has a several flaws in above question. Thus, argument's author must to provide sufficient and persuasive evidence to support these problems. Otherwise, it cannot persuade me to agree with the argument's conclude.