argument143 [0710G ＋U Aug小组]第3次作业

icefirekkUID: 2293126

143The 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: 477          TIME: 00:40:05          DATE: 2007-7-27 20:58:00

In this argument, the arguer draw a conclusion that the article which was made by editor of a national newspaper on the downsizing is misleading. To strenthen his or her argument, a report on the United States economy is cited. Plausible as it seems to be at the first glimplse, but take a deeper consideration, the arguer overlooks other alternatives and due to the unpersuasive proof, I can’t agree with what the arguer claims.
To begin with, the arguer points out that the article which release that many competent worker lost their jobs as a result of downsizing will give the society a mistaken impression. Admittedly, workers who have read about this article will certainly have pressure in their mind more or less, fear that one day the downsizing will take effect on them. However, whether the newspaper is telling the truth or just exaggerates the situation to gather more attention of the public, therefore to increase the income of the natonal newspaper? To better illustrate the arguer’s claim, survey with the newspaper’s credulity should be taken to make the argument more persuasive.
Secondly, as the arguer cites, a recent report that since 1992 more jobs have been created than the jobs be eliminated, which seems to be a inspring event. Also, I doubt that who did the survey and whether the region been surveyed be representative to the whole city or the country? If the survey was limited to a local countryside village, that the arguer equate the particular part with the whole society will be a fallacy, since the jobs been created during a period may due to the economy developping which can surely take a lot of worker into job. But things are not always go good, such as depression and inflation when the jobs will be eliminated dramatically, how long period did the survey taken is not given by the arguer which will subsidize the conclusion.
The survey also gave data that two-thirds of the newly created jobs have been in industries that tend to pay above-average wages, this couldn’t indicate that the economy is developping or the quality of human lives is getting good. It is highly possible that most jobs created are low-paid that make the average wage very low, thus the wages in the industries are a bit better than average income but are still in bad condition. The arguer should get more survery on the variance in average wage in the past decades or long period to make a better contradict with the editor’s article.
In summary, the argument doesn’t take other possible alternatives and makes haste generalization. To better convey his or her opinion against the editor’s claim, the arguer should take more detail surveys, look up more valid data and take all possible alternatives that will make the notion more convincing and plausible, not just in superficial.