argument143 加州阳光第9次作业,欢迎指教:)

timboyUID: 193944

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: 442          TIME: 上午 12:40:00          DATE: 2006-7-13

The argument is well-presented but not thoroughly well-supported. By providing the proof of a recent report on the US economy, the arguer asserts that the impression that many workers who lost jobs as a result of downsizing face serious economic hardship is mistaken.

The arguer fails to provide the confirmation that the jobs created since 1992 are suitable to workers who lost jobs. First, the created jobs may be concerned with people who has little working experience. It is entirely possible that the created jobs are not focused on worker whose working experience is little; thereby lower the cost of salary and benefits to new employees to increase the profit. Or perhaps the employers consider the workers who lost their jobs are less qualified to the job newly provided than other people because the jobs are mainly concerned with entirely new technology considering that the old workers may not easily accept new knowledge. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer should prove that the jobs created are suitable to the workers.

Furthermore, the author unfairly assumes that new employment found by the downsized workers can ensure the sufficient salary which satisfied these workers. Although many of the workers who lost jobs find jobs, no verification demonstrates that they are pleased with the given jobs. Perhaps the workers who find jobs still have to face the economy dilemma on daily lives just because the salary is very low. Or maybe the profit in these jobs are varied intensively according to the relevant market, therefore, the salary cannot always pleased these workers. To make the letter more compelling, the author should find compelling evidence that the jobs found by these workers can provide stable and sufficient salary that can solve the economic hardship of the employees who lost jobs

Finally, no evidence indicates that newly created jobs which featured with full-time working and the relatively high salary are mainly aimed to people who lost jobs. It is very possible that these pleasing jobs are only or mainly supplied to the new employees who have no working experience to encourage their enthusiasm to work and consider the long term development. To make the argument more believable, the arguer should give proof that these jobs can be easily got by the workers who lost jobs.

In conclusion, to make the argument more credible, the arguer should provide the confirmation that the jobs created since 1992 are suitable to workers who lost jobs. Furthermore, the author should prove that the new employment found by the downsized workers can provide sufficient salary to the workers. Finally, there should be evidence indicating that newly created jobs which featured with full-time working and the relatively high salary may be maily aimed to people who lost jobs.

sigtemUID: 2169461

The argument is well-presented but not thoroughly well-supported. By providing the proof of a recent report on the US economy, the arguer asserts that the impression that many workers who lost jobs as a result of downsizing face serious economic hardship is mistaken.

The arguer fails to provide the confirmation that the jobs created since 1992 are suitable to workers who lost jobs. First, the created jobs may be concerned with people who has little working experience. It is entirely possible that the created jobs are not focused on worker whose working experience is little; thereby lower the cost of salary and benefits to new employees to increase the profit 这句话的谓语动词是什么？没看懂. Or perhaps the employers consider the workers who lost their jobs are less qualified to the job newly provided than other people because the jobs are mainly concerned with entirely new technology considering that the old workers may not easily accept new knowledge. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer should prove that the jobs created are suitable to the workers.

Furthermore, the author unfairly assumes that new employment found by the downsized workers can ensure the sufficient salary which satisfied these workers. Although many of the workers who lost jobs find jobs, no verification demonstrates that they are pleased with the given jobs. Perhaps the workers who find jobs still have to face the economy dilemma on daily lives just because the salary is very low. Or maybe the profit in these jobs are varied intensively according to the relevant market, therefore, the salary cannot always pleased these workers. To make the letter more compelling, the author should find compelling evidence that the jobs found by these workers can provide stable and sufficient salary that can solve the economic hardship of the employees who lost jobs. 这一段最好结合作者说的 above-average wages 来驳斥，毕竟作者已经说了他们的工资高于平均水平，你不能避而不谈。你可以说尽管工资高但有可能他们的职业很辛苦（都是在industries里工作，而且full-time），有很多额外支出，比如交通费、医疗费、住房、养老等

Finally, no evidence indicates that newly created jobs which featured with full-time working and the relatively high salary are mainly aimed to people who lost jobs. It is very possible that these pleasing jobs are only or mainly supplied to the new employees who have no working experience to encourage their enthusiasm to work and consider the long term development. To make the argument more believable, the arguer should give proof that these jobs can be easily got by the workers who lost jobs. 这段的论点很好

In conclusion, to make the argument more credible, the arguer should provide the confirmation that the jobs created since 1992 are suitable to workers who lost jobs. Furthermore, the author should prove that the new employment found by the downsized workers can provide sufficient salary to the workers. Finally, there should be evidence indicating that newly created jobs which featured with full-time working and the relatively high salary may be maily aimed to people who lost jobs.

总得来说思路很清晰，把握住了原文几个明显的漏洞。
在语言的表述和严密性上希望再下点功夫。
另外原文好像还有个问题：The report also demonstrates that many of those who lost their jobs have found new employment. 一句中只是说失业的人中很多找到了新工作，但没有给出具体的比例和数量，是不是也存在数字上的说服力？