Argument143 dganggang （kito) 好像写得不好 请一定要痛批

dganggangUID：2125101

143The 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：article是关于事业的一个方面 不能用整个就业情况来涵盖
         arguer引用的report在描述上有很多纰漏
         对于article的理解上也有些错误 （这一点好像多写掉了 根本无所谓）

The letter is composed of an opposition of an article and the reason that is supposed to support the arguer's idea. The theme of the letter is about the employment situation in US and a recent report has been utilized as main evidence.

This argument is well-presented to express the arguer's point but unfortunately, it is not well-reasoned for some serious logic mistakes.

On the one hand, according to the arguer's description, he may misunderstand the editor's emphasize and falsely attach it to the US unemployment problem. As what is mentioned in the letter, "Your recent article on corporate downsizing in US……” which means the article is mainly about the unemployment situation due to the result of downsizing. Therefore, the editor has no intention to discuss the whole employment problem in America and thus, the arguer may misleadingly amplify the editor's point and makes a fallacious judgment upon it.

On the other hand, the quotation and introduction of the report by the arguer has some flaws that are quite groundless. First, the saying that more jobs have been created than have been eliminated has no necessary relation with the conclusion that the unemployment has made a huge progress because those people who have lost their jobs may have no easy access to the new occupations. Second, the adjective "many", which is used to prove the ameliorated employment situation, is so unscientific that it substantiates almost nothing. We need accurate statistics. Last, the last information the arguer provides us that 2/3 of the newly jobs have been in industries, the above-average wages and the full-time stuff are totally irrelevant. These changes make no difference in tackling the unemployment problem.

Last but not the least, the arguer made some small fallacies in the letter which need corrected and readjust. For example, as the arguer writes, “many competent workers" lost their jobs; actually, this identity has no representative effect in the whole unemployment situation either because some of the unemployed are handicapped or those who have not enough education or skills.

In sum, the arguer should reread the editor’s article in order to get his idea completely and accurately, furthermore, he should refer to the report again and list the original statistics and facts to hold the point, finally he may have to reconsider the relation between the article and the report to assure that they do have closely logical relation. Before that, the editor has no need to respond to the arguer to discuss his article.

[ 本帖最后由 yogurt4 于 2006-1-19 23:33 编辑 ]

dganggangUID：2125101

谁来批啊？
这篇写得很差 批得越红越有道理

jingjingtousUID：2164820

143The 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：article是关于事业的一个方面 不能用整个就业情况来涵盖 这点不理解，可以解释一下吗？         
         arguer引用的report在描述上有很多纰漏
         对于article的理解上也有些错误 （这一点好像多写掉了 根本无所谓）

The letter is composed of我觉得好多东西才能用组成，你只有opposition,你看用The letter contains如何？ an opposition of an article and the reason that is supposed to support the arguer's idea. The theme of the letter is about the employment situation in the US and a recent report has been utilized as the main evidence.开头简单明了，且thesis高度概括了批判的中心，好！

This argument is well-presented to express the arguer's point but unfortunately,这句其实可以不要，一个however接下面这句就足够了it is not well-reasoned for some serious logic mistakes.

On the one hand, according to the arguer's description, he may misunderstand the editor's emphasize and falsely attach it to the US unemployment problem. As what is mentioned in the letter, "Your recent article on corporate downsizing in US……” 你犯了surmarize的大忌！！！你完全可以用自己的话表述出来which means the article is mainly about the unemployment situation due to the result of downsizing. Therefore, the editor has no intention to discuss the whole employment problem in America你是在揣测另一篇文章的作者的意图，这与驳斥这篇文章似乎没有多大关系 and thus, the arguer may misleadingly amplify the editor's point and makes a fallacious judgment upon it. 看完你第一段论述，你认为作者是把原作者的意图扩大化了，这是你认为的这篇argument的错误，但是我觉得这只是一个背景，不过这里有很大争论，我们问问她们看看！

On the other hand, the quotation and introduction of the report by the arguer has have some flaws that are quite groundless. First, the saying that more jobs have been created than have been eliminated has no necessary relation with the conclusion that the unemployment我觉得从report来看应该是employment has made a huge progress because those people who have lost their jobs may have no easy access to the new occupations.对，这点批的好 Second, the adjective "many", which is used to prove the ameliorated好词！ employment situation, is so unscientific that it substantiates almost nothing.数据模糊，好！ We need accurate more concrete statistics. Last, the last information the arguer provides us that 2/3 of the newly jobs have been created in industries, the above-average wages and the full-time stuff are totally irrelevant. These changes make no difference in tackling the unemployment problem好句。.
这段的论证前半部分非常好，直击要害，但是后半部分的2/3 of the newly jobs have been in industries the above-average wages and the full-time stuff are totally irrelevant.缺乏力度，因为我觉得这里是文章要驳斥的中心！

Last but not the least, the arguer made some small fallacies in the letter which need corrected and readjust correction and readjustion. For example, as the arguer writes, “many competent workers" 不要引原文除非是攻击定义，这点我们可以讨论一下！lost their jobs; actually, this identity has no representative effect in the whole unemployment situation either because some of the unemployed are handicapped or those who have not enough education or skills.没有代表作用和残疾或没受教育有关系吗？competent worker的失业意在说明就业形势不容乐观，你的意思是连那些没受教育的人都没就业所以这些人就更找不到工作，对吗？

In sum, the arguer should reread the editor’s article in order to get his idea completely and accurately, furthermore, he should refer to the report again and list the original statistics and facts to hold the point, finally he may have to reconsider the relation between the article是那个article应该是作者自己的吧，应该说清楚才是 and the report to assure that they do have closely logical relation. Before that, the editor has no need to respond to the arguer to discuss his article. 感觉结尾有点模板化，指出作者应该怎么样怎么样，不过归纳的很好！

dganggang这篇文章的论证思路和我有很大冲突，因为我觉得从report之前的都是这篇argument的背景，而你认为作者错误的扩大了原文章的意图，我觉得很有必要就这点和其它组员一起讨论一下！

dganggangUID：2125101

确实
我写这篇确实觉得很有问题
因为你根本不知道editor article写了些什么
所以只能套帽子说arguer在胡扯 在误解 漏掉很多必须得details

dganggangUID：2125101

我今天上课对于arg有了新的认识
以前的写法 也包括大家的写法都可以改进
其实我们要尊重这个arguer or speaker
具体以后再说