Argument143 [Victors小组]第十次作文

hlzhang431UID: 2297648

ARGUMENT143- The following appeared as a letter to the editor of a national newspaper.

"Yourrecent article on corporate downsizing* in the United States is misleading. Thearticle gives the mistaken impression that many competent workers who lost jobsas a result of downsizing face serious economic hardship, often for years,before finding other suitable employment. But this impression is contradictedby a recent report on the United  States economy, which found that since 1992far more jobs have been created than have been eliminated. The report alsodemonstrates 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 payabove-average wages, and the vast majority of these jobs are full-time."

*Downsizingis the process in which corporations deliberately reduce the number of theiremployees.

Relyingon what might be an incorrect report on the United States (US) economy, theauthor of this argument concludes that the article on corporate downsizing inUS of the editor of a national newspaper is misleading. Close scrutiny of hisor her inference reveals that it suffers from many illogical fallacies and thusis unconvincing.

Themajor problem with this argument is that the report the author provided doesnot seem to contradict with the editor's article on corporate downsizing forthe following several respects: Firstly, the author overlooks the possibilitythat most of the newly created jobs since 1992 might not be suitable for thecompetent laid-off workers mentioned by the editorial. It is entirely possiblethat the vast of these newly created jobs require a low level of skill orexperience, such as food serving, clerical assistance, cleaning and maintenanceand so forth. Nevertheless, most of the laid-off workers are highly competentmiddle-managers seeking for measurable jobs as before.

Secondly,the finding that many of those who lost their jobs have found new employmentseems too vague to justify the author's conclusion. Without mentioning relevantspecific statistics or information, this statement might be of little use inrefuting the editorial's article for the simple reason that there might be onlyan insufficient of laid-off workers having found new jobs or perhaps theseworkers who have found new jobs were not those competent laid-off workers.

Finally,the fact that two-thirds of the newly created jobs are full-time positions thattend to pay above-average wages seems still lends no support to the author'sreasoning. As is said earlier, these jobs, low positions as they were, mightnot be suitable for those competent laid-off workers, who may be seeking forsome more prestigious positions.

Ina word, the author's reasoning lacks of credibility as it stands. Regardless ofwho the author is, he or she has overlooked or chosen to ignore many aspects ofhis or her conclusion. To further strengthen it, more evidence should beprovided to eliminate the above-mentioned possibilities.

(2007-6-1315:18:39)

[ 本帖最后由 hlzhang431 于 2007-6-16 20:03 编辑 ]