argument143 宝贝小猪作业（coffee）写的比较慢

宝贝小猪UID：2135340

143.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.


提纲：
      1。从1992年以来新增工作不一定适合那些被公司裁减的人员，那些人也可能只会选择适合他们职业方向的工作
      2   Many很模糊，没有说服力，到底是多少没有说清楚。2000人应该算比较多，但是比较总失业认识100000就不是很多了
      3   被公司裁减的人员不一定去industries，工资在高但是职位也不一定适合他们去作



    This editorial disagree with a certain claim on recent report that many competent workers who lost jobs as a result of downsizing face serious economic hardship-due to inability to find a suitable work. To support the disagreement the editorial’s author argue that1: there are much more job are created than eliminated since 1992 which was reported recently by United States Economy.2: Many employee lost there job have found new job.3: Most newly created jobs are fully－time position in industry that tend to pay high wages. With scrutiny of each of the facts, however, revealing none of them lend credible support to the disagreement.

    First of all, the editorial mention that much more job had been created than been eliminated jobs. So how many jobs had been created? The author can not give us a statistic number of creating jobs. We can suppose that the number of eliminated job is little and that of created job is the same. But the total number of created job is higher than that of eliminated job. It is also in accordance with report’s statement. Furthermore most of the newly created jobs are not suitable for job seekers that downsized by big corporations. Perhaps the vast of majority of jobs involve teachers, food serving, cleaners and maintenance which require little working skill and experience. Lacking enough evidence to substantiate the statement, the editorial’s author can not convince me of the disagreement.

    Second, ”many ” is too vague for author to draw any conclusion. If many amounts to an insignificant percentage of downsize employees, then the finding is of little use to refute the article’s claim. If eight out of ten people who had lost there jobs have gain stable jobs. We can say that there are indeed “many “people finding newly created job. But if there are 100000 people who lost there jobs however only 2000 of them have gain the new jobs. The percentage of total downsize people is insignificant so there are not many having found new employment although the net number of employees is too high. Lacking of statistic number of how many downsized employees have gain new job the author can not draw any conclusion about the impact of corporate downsizing on downsized employees.

    Third, editorial’s author argues that 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. It can substantiate the disagreement under the two assumptions (1) that the newly created jobs in those high-paying industries are suitable for downsized corporate employee and (2)the new job are among the high-paying ones. But the assumptions are not very correct. Not all the industry are suitable for all employee downsized by corporation. Take medical works for example, if a medical worker was downsized by a medical corporation, he can not seek a work in industry though wage is above-average.

    In sum, the author has not effectively refute the article’s claim that corporation has worked economy hard ship on downsized corporation employee .To more effectively debate the claim the author should provide statistic number of created jobs and which kind of people they are suit for since 1992.and should provide clear evidence the most of those job-seeker are able to fill the sort of new job that have been created since 1992.

果小冻UID：208370

占位，我因为没有写过，所以看的慢，呵呵到现在还没看好，表急哦

果小冻UID：208370

143.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.


提纲：
      1。从1992年以来新增工作不一定适合那些被公司裁减的人员，那些人也可能只会选择适合他们职业方向的工作
      2   Many很模糊，没有说服力，到底是多少没有说清楚。2000人应该算比较多，但是比较总失业认识100000就不是很多了
      3   被公司裁减的人员不一定去industries，工资在高但是职位也不一定适合他们去作[看了一下提纲,感觉1和3有些重复]



    This editorial disagree with a certain claim on recent report that many competent workers who lost jobs as a result of downsizing face serious economic hardship-due to inability to find a suitable work. To support the disagreement the editorial’s author argue that1: there are much more job are created than eliminated since 1992 which was reported recently by United States Economy.2: Many employee lost there job have found new job.3: Most newly created jobs are fully－time position in industry that tend to pay high wages. With scrutiny of each of the facts, however, revealing none of them lend credible support to the disagreement.[开头要简洁,我恰巧看到了范文,呵呵你这是模仿范文的吧.觉得范文里好多开头太烦琐了]

    First of all, the editorial mention that much more job had been created than been eliminated jobs. [开头最好直接指明问题所在]So how many jobs had been created? The author can not give us a statistic number of creating jobs. We can suppose that the number of eliminated job is little and that of created job is the same. But the total number of created job is higher than that of eliminated job. It is also in accordance with report’s statement. Furthermore most of the newly created jobs are not suitable for job seekers that downsized by big corporations. Perhaps the vast of majority of jobs involve teachers, food serving, cleaners and maintenance which require little working skill and experience. Lacking enough evidence to substantiate the statement, the editorial’s author can not convince me[最好不要出现这个词] of the disagreement.[段中的展开不错,结尾也有总结,结构还是挺好的,中心句在明确点就好了哈]

    Second, ”many ” is too vague for author to draw any conclusion. If many amounts to an insignificant percentage of downsize employees, then the finding is of little use to refute the article’s claim. If eight out of ten people who had lost there jobs have gain stable jobs. We can say that there are indeed “many “people finding newly created job. But if there are 100000 people who lost there jobs however only 2000 of them have gain the new jobs. The percentage of total downsize people is insignificant so there are not many having found new employment although the net number of employees is too high. Lacking of statistic number of how many downsized employees have gain new job the author can not draw any conclusion about the impact of corporate downsizing on downsized employees.[这个段落我感觉抓着一个词来辩并不明智,容易说不清楚,个人意见哈]

    Third, editorial’s author argues that 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. It can substantiate the disagreement under the two assumptions (1) that the newly created jobs in those high-paying industries are suitable for downsized corporate employee and (2)the new job are among the high-paying ones. But the assumptions are not very correct. Not all the industry are suitable for all employee downsized by corporation. Take medical works for example, if a medical worker was downsized by a medical corporation, he can not seek a work in industry though wage is above-average.

    In sum, the author has not effectively refute the article’s claim that corporation has worked economy hard ship on downsized corporation employee .To more effectively debate the claim the author should provide statistic number of created jobs and which kind of people they are suit for since 1992.and should provide clear evidence the most of those job-seeker are able to fill the sort of new job that have been created since 1992.
[我感觉你的思路还是不清楚,所以每个攻击点之间有重复,或者逻辑层次不清晰,我是这么想的:
1,新设的岗位多,不代表被裁工人都能找到工作哦，因为没有提供要找工作人和提供的岗位的具体数目.
2,很多失业人又找到工作,并不能说明问题,首先,没有提供他们找到工作的时间,也许是过了很多年才找到的.其次,即使找到了,也许也是一部分,很多到底代表多少百分比
3,提到的三分之二的高工资和全职职位,失业人也不一定可以得到,因为有工种技术年龄等的限制.
恩,感觉你把很多东西杂糅了.]