argument143 [0710G summer] by niuzhist

niuzhistUID: 2363220

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."
*Downsizing is the process in which corporations deliberately reduce the number of their employees.
提纲：1。（report的错误）report的真实性很值得怀疑
         Report是通过应该是通过统计与调查获得的，那么调查的对象人数是否够多，是不是占失业
         人数的绝大部分。所用的新增工作和消失的工作数量是被统计了，是不是多统计了新增工作而
         少统计了小时的工作人数。
      2．新增的三分之二的好工作不一定都让那些失业的人得到了。
          人口一直在增多，他们也需要工作。好的工作岗位对已在职的人也很有吸引力。
      3．大多数失业的人不一定能找到新工作
          由于工作种类，技术水平，年龄等原因的限制，失业的人不易找到新工作。
          也许只是一部人找到了，但绝不是大多数，并且花了好长的时间。
WORDS: 460          TIME: 00:30:00          DATE: 2007-8-1 下午 02:23:29
In the author's argument, he draws his conclusion that the recent article on corporate downsizing in the United States is
misleading. To substantiate his view, the author points out that a recent report undermine the article mentioned above which
indicates that far more jobs have been created since 1992 and many of those who lost their jobs have found new employment.
Based on unfounded assumption and poorly supported evidence ,I am specious about the author's conclusion which suffers from
several fallacies.

Firstly, the report cited by author lack authenticity relied on some unfounded surveys. The author gives no information about
the fact that how the progress of the survey is carried out which determine the authenticity of the report. The people who
participate in the survey may be only the minority of the whole key demographic group which means that it can not ensure the
statistically significance. It is hard to know whether the newly created jobs and the eliminated jobs are all emulated in the
survey. There is a chance that more eliminated jobs are calculated, but in reverse, less new created jobs are calculated. Without
addressing there problems mentioned above, I can not be easily convinced that the report is untenable.
Secondly, the author makes a false assumption that all the two-thirds of wonderful newly created jobs are mainly taken by the
people who lost their jobs, As time goes by, the population of this area becomes larger and larger which means that certain part
of the new jobs must be supplied for the new babies . Furthermore, It is entirely possible that people with jobs are also interested
in the newly created jobs since these jobs can offer their higher salaries and enhance the possibility of getting promoted. Without
ruling out the possibilities and giving more details about the number of people who find new jobs again, I am still suspicious of the
author's conclusion.

Thirdly, the majority of people who lost their jobs have little possibilities to find new jobs rather than the report shows above.
Many other factors are attributable to the occurrence of this case. Different workers have various skill levels which can not make
them all qualified for the new jobs. Moreover, their diverse ages which can not meet many companies’ standards and different kinds
of jobs which are only in accordance with some of the new jobs may also be a limitation on the chance for getting a new job again.
Perhaps, only small of them find new jobs but rather the majority. Unless the author supply more information , the authenticity of
the report will  definitely be undermined strongly on which the foundation of the author's conclusion relies.

To sum up, I have to admit that the author's conclusion is totally unpersuasive. In order to make the assertion more cogent, the
author must give more information about the number of newly created jobs and eliminated jobs, the number of people who gets new jobs
again and who takes the two-thirds of wonderful new .jobs