argument143 [0710G +U Aug小组]第三次作业

wm23UID: 2245087

ARGUMENT143

The author concludes that the recent article gives the mistaken impression about downsizing and living condition of laid-off workers. In addition, the author cites a recent report on economy to support his conclusion, the author also rebuts the article by providing the state of some downsized worker nowadays. The argument appears plausible at the first glance, however, several logical fallacies make the argument highly suspect.

First, the author just told us that there are many laid-off workers have found new job, but we still don't know the specific number of the workers who got new jobs. Furthermore, we can not judge the problem only depend on the number of the workers who got job. To suppose, if there are ten million downsized workers, and only one percent of them have found a new job, we also can claim that there are many workers got a new job, but the problem is still unsolved.

Second, the author only emphasize that more jobs have been created than eliminated, and a lot of workers have found new job, but it is still miserable of the condition of the new jobs. When we try to judge whether the problem of unemployment have been settled, we should consider the workers' living condition. We can make an assumption, if these new jobs are low-paid and with a bad working environment, moreover, those workers who got new jobs are still in a necessitous living condition, how can we consider that we have done with the problem.

Third, the argument suffer a false logical illation of refuting the article's position that downsized workers suffering serious economic hardship before they get job by claiming a lot of new jobs created. There have no direct relationship between new created jobs and the unemployed workers' living condition. The laid-off workers’ living poor lives, even though there are a lot of new jobs, if they can find one to fit them, their living condition still can not be changed. It makes the conclusion more inconvincible that the author simply consider the article gives a mistaken impression of unemployed workers depend on the proof of new jobs, and it is also unfair for the article.

In sum, the author fails to convince us that the article’s position that poor living condition of unemployed workers is misleading and mistaken impression. To strengthen the argument, the author must provide more specific information and details about the new created jobs and those workers who have been found a new job. To better evaluate the argument, more evidence about other aspects that can prove the living condition of laid-off workers have been improved are necessary.