argument143 kito组 谢谢拍砖

智恩UID：2160717

【题目】
Argument143（2005年2-9月总频率24次）
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 新设的岗位多不一定失业的这些人就能找到工作（人口增多了，那么需要就业的人也就增多了，那么失业者面临的是更大的竞争）
2 report中未提供任何数据来说明到底有多少失业的人找到了新工作，many用语含糊【 of ambiguity】
3 above－average wages和full－time jobs与face serious economic hardship之间没有因果关系；高于平均水平的工资也不见得就高
【正文】（402字）
In this argument, the author reaches a conclusion that a recent article on corporate downsizing in the United States is misleading. To support his or her conclusion, the author provides a number of evidence which lacks of statistical information. Close scrutiny of this argument however none of the evidence lends support to this conclusion.

First of all, the author unfairly assumes that more job opportunities than eliminated could resolve the unemployment’s serious economic hardship. No evidence is offered to substantiate that the new job chance makes the unemployment find jobs. Perhaps with the development of population, the need for employment is increasing. Also it is more difficult for the unemployment to compete with the current people who have graduated from universities. If this is the case, the author’s claim that more jobs have been created than have been eliminated is unconvincing as a piece of evidence to demonstrate his or her conclusion.

Secondly, there is no definite and detailed data in the report the author quoted to illustrate that how many unemployed persons get new jobs. The author simply points out that many of those who are jobless have found new employment. What is more, “many” is an ambiguity of statistics, which could not demonstrate the unemployment problem has been solved. Unless the author provide detailed data of how many unemployed men find new jobs, the report lends little support to his or her claim.

Last but not the least, the author commits a fallacy that there is a causal relationship between the above-average wages and full-time jobs and resolving of economic hardship. For one thing, the above-average salaries do not indicate high wages. There is a bare possibility that the average wages are low and make people difficult to livelihood. For another thing, the full-time job does not mean high salary. If so, the full-time job could not help the jobless to get rid of the economic hardship even if they get new job again. Thus taking these possibilities into consideration, the assumption the author proposes is untenable as it stands.

In summary, this argument is logically flawed in several aspects. To strengthen it, the author must provide detailed and accurate statistics about how many unemployed people find new jobs and the definite salary to substantiate that although the jobless suffer economic hardship, they quickly get rid of their economic difficulties and the downsizing does not make the unemployed difficult livelihood.

@amy@UID：209096

In this argument, the author reaches a conclusion that a recent article on corporate downsizing in the United States is misleading. To support his or her conclusion, the author provides a number of evidence[,] which lacks of statistical information. Close scrutiny of this argument[,] however none of the evidence lends support to this conclusion.

First of all, the author unfairly assumes that more job opportunities than eliminated could resolve the unemployment’s serious economic hardship. No evidence is offered to substantiate that the new job chance makes [chances make] the unemployment find jobs. Perhaps with the development of population, the need for employment is increasing. Also it is more difficult for the unemployment to compete with the current people who have graduated from universities. [这点想得不错]If this is the case, the author’s claim that more jobs have been created than have been eliminated is unconvincing as a piece of evidence to demonstrate his or her conclusion.

Secondly, there is no definite and detailed data in the report the author quoted to illustrate that how many unemployed persons get new jobs. The author simply points out that many of those who are jobless have found new employment. What is more,[后面和前面说的是同样的意思，好像没有递进关系] “many” is an ambiguity of statistics, which could not demonstrate the unemployment problem has been solved. Unless the author provide detailed data of how many unemployed men find new jobs, the report lends little support to his or her claim.

Last but not the least, the author commits a fallacy that there is a causal relationship between the above-average wages and full-time jobs and resolving of economic hardship. For one thing, the above-average salaries do not indicate high wages. There is a bare possibility that the average wages are low and make people difficult to livelihood. For another thing, the full-time job does not mean high salary. If so, the full-time job could not help the jobless to get rid of the economic hardship even if they get new job again. Thus taking these possibilities into consideration, the assumption the author proposes is untenable as it stands.

In summary, this argument is logically flawed in several aspects. To strengthen it, the author must provide detailed and accurate statistics about how many unemployed people find new jobs and the definite salary to substantiate that although the jobless suffer economic hardship, they quickly get rid of their economic difficulties and the downsizing does not make the unemployed difficult livelihood.