argument143 天道酬勤小组7.8作业

DavidBoyUID: 2140040

题目：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."

*Downsizing is the process in which corporations deliberately reduce the number of their employees.
字数：362          用时：0:52:48          日期：2007-7-8

The arguer asserts the 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 is wrong because of a recent report. At the first glance, the argument seems reasonable, while it contains several flaws as closer scrutiny.

To begin with, we don't know the necessary detail about the created jobs in the report. Maybe only some certain kinds of subjects have increased their number of jobs largely while other realms' jobs have eliminated. Although the sum of jobs is increasing, there is still large number of workers including competent ones losing their jobs. If the assumption above is true, then this group of people is hard to find suitable employment because the occupation they used to do is downsizing while the vacant jobs are the occupation they aren't familiar with.

Another flaw to weaken the argument is that the author didn't provide the number of the workers lost their jobs and the number of the ones have found new jobs. If the sum of the workers out of jobs is much larger than the ones found new jobs, then even the latter is large, it may show more people are still out of jobs. For example, there are 1,000 workers have their new jobs while 10,000 workers out of work, it just reveals the opposite to the arguer claiming.

The last but not the least, the case that the newly created jobs have a high pay and most are  full-time is short of cogency. Maybe the high wage is paid by large companies while more small companies couldn't afford so high wage. What more possible is that the newly created jobs are so hard, high level of laborite and harmful to the workers and are always overtime that few person would like to take the job.

In conclusion, the author must provide more information to make the argument more convincing: the occupation the workers who lost jobs used to do and the kinds of newly created jobs ,the number of workers out of jobs and the ones who have found new jobs, and the detail about the created jobs.

DavidBoyUID: 2140040

原帖由 DavidBoy 于 2007-7-8 18:51 发表



题目：ARGUMENT 143 - The following appeared as a letter to the editor of a national newspaper.

The arguer asserts the 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 is wrong because of a recent report. At the first glance, the argument seems reasonable, while it contains several flaws as closer recrutiny. （scrutiny）

To begin with, we（尽量少出现we，i，不客观） don't know （怎么不知道呢，the arguer fail to inform us the necessary details as）the information about the created jobs in the report. Maybe only some certain（some certain二选一） kinds of subjects（subject是什么意思?） have increased their number of jobs largely while other realms' jobs have eliminated.(感觉有的强词夺理了，人家说的很明确了增加的岗位比减少的多，没说是某个职业) Although the sum of jobs is increasing, there are still large number of workers including competent ones losing their jobs. If the assumption above is true, then this group of people are hard to find suitable employment because the occupation they used to do is downsizing while the vacant jobs are the occupation they aren't familiar with.（一段指出一个逻辑错误，然后用推理法推出荒唐的结果。你的文章总觉得想一次说好几个事情）

Another flaw to weaken the argument is that the auther didn't provide the number of the workers lost their jobs and the number of the one have found new jobs. If the sum of the workers out of jobs is much larger than the ones found new jobs, then even the latter is large, it may show more people are still out of jobs. For example, there are 1,000 workers have their new jobs while 10,000 workers out of work,it just reveals the opposite to the arguer claiming.（人家就是说的失业者中的many又重新找到工作了，所以肯定失业的比上岗的多么，这个逻辑错误没抓对）

The last but not the least, the case that the newly created jobs have a high pay and most are  full-time is short of cogency（short of cogency，论证无力， 套在这里不贴切吧）. Maybe that the high wage are payer by large companies while more small companies couldn't afford so high  wage. What more possible is that the newly created jobs are so hard, high level of laborty and harmful to the workers and are always overtime that few person would like to take the job.
(这样论证，Given the larger part of  the  newly created jobs are waged higher than ordinary,  it doesn’t necessarily mean it is the content workers, unemployed for years, obtain those vacates. It is no wander the new jobs, appealing according to the letter, with some special requirements with the offer. Then it will be doubting the workers, leaving by the downsizing for years, still be take advantages to others in the application, even have failed to refresh professional knowledge for years, suffered by poverty and may be without college degree?        )

In conclusion, the author must provide more information to make the argument more convincing: the occupation the workers who lost jobs used to do and the kinds of newly created jobs ,the number of workers out of jobs and the ones who have found new jobs, and the detail about the created jobs.

你寻找逻辑错误的能力仍然欠缺，首先认证阅读我发给你的找错笔记，不要光练笔

[ 本帖最后由 DavidBoy 于 2007-7-9 07:57 编辑 ]