ARGUMENT143 [Victors小组]第九次作业 by jennetrj

jennetrjUID: 2275453

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: 473          TIME: 00:30:00         

In this argument, the author concludes that the article published in the newspaper is mistaken in alleging that job lost among competent workers is the result of corporation downsizing facing with serious economic hardship. To justify this conclusion, the author cites the recent study concerning about labor market which showed more opportunities created than eliminated after 1992. Moreover, the author claims that unemployed workers could get new jobs and two thirds of those jobs are about to pay wages more than the average level. However, close scrutiny reveals several flaws in it.

To begin with, the information provided in the passage is too vague to be informative. There's no indication of the demographic data of the labor market, for instance, the number of unemployment workers and the respective job opportunities. It is totally possible that unemployed ones had been tripled, while only 50% more jobs were available, in other words, it’s more competitive to get employed. Or perhaps job opportunities increased more, but only covered some fields that were not suitable for workers, such as high-technology firm vacancies. Until the author provides enough statistical data to analyze the labor market, the author's conclusion that workers could get employed could not be taken seriously.

Assuming that workers could get new positions, it doesn't necessarily mean that they could make it soon after their unemployment. No evidence is provided in the passage to support it. Maybe laid-off workers spent years in finding an appropriate job in the labor market, or they had to switch to other fields in order to earn a life. Either scenario, if true, would serve to undermine author's assumption that workers could continue their career in proper field soon after.

Furthermore, the author fails to ensure me that workers could get more salaries since new created jobs were supposed to be with better payment package. Such allegation is based on the assumption that workers would get new employments in industries which would like to pay more. This is apparently not the case. Those job opportunities might cover a large spectrum of fields, like traditional manufacturing industries, automobile firms, which might probably not pay high wages. Or employers would like to offer more payment, but only limited to management level in which workers are hardly included. Author's failure to eliminate or even consider such possibilities renders the conclusion that re-employed workers could get better payments than before highly suspect.

In sum, the argument is groundless as it stands. To consolidate it, the author should provide more evidence--maybe by more statistical data of labor market--to show that laid-off workers could get new jobs. In addition, the author should ensure us that those workers could find appropriate jobs soon after unemployment. To better assess the argument, we need to know if those employers would really pay good salaries for the re-employed workers.

solartorchUID: 2244205

In this argument, the author concludes that the article published in the newspaper is mistaken in alleging that job lost among competent workers is the result of corporation downsizing facing with serious economic hardship. To justify this conclusion, the author cites the recent study concerning about labor market which showed more opportunities created than eliminated after 1992. Moreover, the author claims that unemployed workers could get new jobs and two thirds of those jobs are about to pay wages more than the average level. However, close scrutiny reveals several flaws in it.

To begin with, the information provided in the passage is too vague to be informative. There's no indication of the demographic data of the labor market, for instance, the number of unemployment workers and the respective job opportunities. It is totally possible that unemployed ones had been tripled, while only 50% more jobs were available,这点不大对吧，题目里面more jobs have been created than have been eliminated。 in other words, it’s more competitive to get employed. Or perhaps job opportunities increased more, but only covered some fields that were not suitable for workers, such as high-technology firm vacancies. Until the author provides enough statistical data to analyze the labor market, the author's conclusion that workers could get employed could not be taken seriously.

Assuming that workers could get new positions, it doesn't necessarily mean that they could make it soon after their unemployment. No evidence is provided in the passage to support it. Maybe laid-off workers spent years in finding an appropriate job in the labor market, or they had to switch to other fields in order to earn a life这个和时间没关系阿 Either scenario, if true, would serve to undermine author's assumption that workers could continue their career in proper field soon after.

Furthermore, the author fails to ensure me that workers could get more salaries since new created jobs were supposed to be with better payment package. Such allegation is based on the assumption that workers would get new employments in industries which would like to pay more. This is apparently not the case. Those job opportunities might cover a large spectrum of fields, like traditional manufacturing industries, automobile firms, which might probably not pay high wages. Or employers would like to offer more payment, but only limited to management level in which workers are hardly included. Author's failure to eliminate or even consider such possibilities renders the conclusion that re-employed workers could get better payments than before highly suspect.

In sum, the argument is groundless as it stands. To consolidate it, the author should provide more evidence--maybe by more statistical data of labor market--to show that laid-off workers could get new jobs. In addition, the author should ensure us that those workers could find appropriate jobs soon after unemployment. To better assess the argument, we need to know if those employers would really pay good salaries for the re-employed workers.

在限时的情况下，这片作文写得算挺不错了，LZ 加油！