ARGUMENT143 [076G飞跃小组]zengyouwen第8次作业 求拍留链必复

zengyouwenUID: 2284999

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."
WORDS: 362          TIME: 上午 12:30:00          DATE: 2007-3-3

The arguer advocates that the recent article in the national newspaper on corporate downsizing in the United States is misleading. To illustrate this, the arguer cites the evidence that a recent report on the United States economy, which indicate that more jobs are created than eliminated, many people get new jobs and the salary is above average wages. But the arguer fails as the argument suffers several fallacies.

The first problem that undermines the argument is the credibility of the national economy survey. No information is indicated in the survey concerning the sample chosen methods, the number of people answered the question paper and who does not answer, and so on. Thus, make the argument lack of convincing as it stands.

Second, granted that the study about the economy is credible. But the evidence that more jobs are created than eliminated since 1992 and most of the newly created jobs are in industries still make the argument weak to believe. Maybe the one who lost their jobs are white-collar class, but there just a position of steel worker, how can they get a suitable employment in such a short time. And further, the payment is above average salary is still not suitable for these competent workers. Lacking such evidence the conclusion of the author is still hard to believe.

Last but not least is the vague data cited by the arguer, which claims that many people of these who lost their jobs have found new employment. They arguer fails to consider the ratio of the people who have get a new suitable job. Maybe only one people out of ten have get a new position among the one million job losers, thus we still can get the conclusion that many people have get a new suitable job. How come that the newspaper's article is mistaken when it reports that the impression that many competent workers who lost jobs as  a result of downsizing face serious economic hardship, and often takes them years to get a new suitable job.

In sum, the arguer’s assertion is lack of credibility as the weak points mentioned above. To illustrate the argument more convincing and effective more information about the survey should be given.