Argument143 【米国有米】小组 第十一次作业,有点难写,一般套路都不能用~

ernest81888UID: 2247639

Argument 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.”

Syllabus:
Flaw1: more created jobs existed does not lead to the assumption that many competent workers lost their jobs have changes to find a new job.
Flaw2: The report shows to us that those who downsizing workers have been employed. But it dose supply us the information how long do they finally find the job.
Flaw3: the above-average wages do not equal with a suitable job

In this argument, the arguer concludes the recent article on corporate downsizing, which describes about workers re-employed fact is not correct or even seems to be misleading. To justify his statement, the arguer cited a report indicating that 1) From 1992s, occupation is not limited, but increased dramatically. 2) Those many corporate downsizing workers have found their new employment. 3) These newly created jobs are paid above-average wages.
At a first glance, the argument seems to be somehow plausible, but further reflection shows it suffering from at least 3 logical flaws.

Firstly, the mere fact that more creased jobs exist can not directly lead to the arguer’s assumption that many competent workers who lost their jobs have the equally creased opportunities to find a new one. However, this is none necessarily the case. Maybe, these years, there are a great number of students graduated from schools craving for jobs, or maybe a huge amount of emigrations come into Unit Stated for occupations. Perhaps those above two kinds of people take the largely existent working opportunities provided by the society. Thus, corporate downsizing workers’ chances for work will still remain low. Without eliminate other facts coming from domestic or exotic that might affect those need to re-employed man or woman’s working future, the arguer’s conclusion based upon it is highly suspect.

Secondly, even if the working opportunities are increased for those workers, the arguer still does not provide us the information about the cycle time when those people finally find employments. It is possible that majority of them used 4 years or even more time to be employed. With out pointed in the argument how long do these man or women take jobs in the end, we still can not say the employment for them is optimistic. So, as I analyzed above, the conclusion rendered by the auger might amount to unconvincing and groundless.

Lastly, the auger assumes that a job paying above-average wages can be determined as a suitable job. Nevertheless, the auger does not provide sufficient evidence to support this claim. Perhaps the loading of current work becomes heavier, or perhaps the welfare is not as good as it before. Others like working environment, working press, length of office time are all possibly be considered by these worker to determine whether their current are expected or not. Granted the job is full-time, lacking of take these possibly existing elements into consideration, I can not believe a good paying job is equal to a suitable one for these corporate downsizing employees.

In sum, this argument is well-present, but not throughout reasoned. To make it logical acceptable, the auger should make a full investigation about the current working situation for the workers. Also in order to better access to the strength of the conclusions, I would need more information about the cycle time for these person to find a new job. At last, it is helpful to make it clear whether a current good paying job for them can be considered as a suitable one or not.

森林116UID: 2272614

In this argument, the arguer concludes the recent article on corporate downsizing, which describes about workers re-employed fact is not correct or even seems to be misleading. To justify his statement, the arguer cited a report indicating that 1) From 1992s, occupation is not limited, but increased dramatically. 2) Those many corporate downsizing workers have found their new employment. 3) These newly created jobs are paid above-average wages.
At a first glance, the argument seems to be somehow plausible, but further reflection shows it suffering from at least 3 logical flaws.(开头没什么问题, 似乎陈述的太多了点.)

Firstly, the mere fact that more (increasing) creased jobs exist can not directly lead to the arguer’s assumption that many competent workers who lost their jobs have the equally creased (increasing) opportunities to find a new one. However, this is none necessarily the case (是这样么>>觉得有点怪怪的~). Maybe, these years, there are a great number of students graduated from schools craving for jobs, or maybe a huge amount of emigrations come into Unit Stated for occupations. Perhaps those above two kinds of people take the largely existent working opportunities provided by the society. Thus, corporate downsizing workers’ chances for work will still remain low. Without eliminate other facts coming from domestic or exotic that might affect those need to re-employed man or woman’s working future, the arguer’s conclusion based upon it is highly suspect(suspectable). (可以,要注意一些小问题)

Secondly, even if the working opportunities are increased for those workers, the arguer still does not provide us the information about the cycle time when those people finally find employments. It is possible that majority of them used 4 years or even more time to be employed. With out pointed in the argument how long do these man or women take jobs in the end, we still can not say the employment for them is optimistic. So, as I (have) analyzed above, the conclusion rendered by the auger might amount to unconvincing and groundless.(最后一句8错)

Lastly, the auger assumes that a job paying above-average wages can be determined as a suitable job.(8错,很新颖) Nevertheless, the auger does not provide sufficient evidence to support this claim. Perhaps the loading of current work becomes heavier, or perhaps the welfare is not as good as it before. Others like working environment, working press, length of office time are all possibly be considered by these worker to determine whether their current are expected or not. Granted the job is full-time, lacking of take these possibly existing elements into consideration, I can not believe a good paying job is equal to a suitable one for these corporate downsizing employees.

In sum, this argument is well-present, but not throughout reasoned. To make it logical acceptable, the auger should make a full investigation about the current working situation for the workers. Also in order to better access to the strength of the conclusions, I would need more information about the cycle time for these person to find a new job. At last, it is helpful to make it clear whether a current good paying job for them can be considered as a suitable one or not.(结尾可以, 总的来说问题存在细微的地方...继续加油!!!)