argument143 [victor小组]第十次作业by baiyu_2005

baiyu_2005UID: 2255194

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.

In this letter, the arguer claims that the article gives the mistaken impression that many competent workers who lost jobs because of downsizing face serious economic environment, often lasting for years, before finding other suitable employment. To justify this argument the arguer cites a recent report which weakens the point of the article which there is a neat increased new jobs since 1992 and many workers who lost job have found new ones. Moreover these are two third payments are higher than average which are most full-time ones. However the argument suffers from several logical flaws which render it unconvincing.

The first problem involve the new increased jobs, it is possible that most these kind of jobs are not suitable for the workers who lost their jobs because of downsizing face serious economic hardship. Maybe it is the unsuitable new job that is result of serious economic environment which calls for different positions or skills and lead to the many competent workers go out of jobs. Without any evidence to ruling out the possible situation, the arguer could not strongly support his/her opinion.

The second problem is about the "many" which appear in the passage above. Except from just this vague word the writer failed to provide other exactitude words to tell us how many at end workers find new jobs, especially that were forded out of positions during difficult economic situations. It is also possible that the new job finders are those who just do not want to still work in their old positions but not the ones the article cared about. If it is the case, the assertion would be weakened heavily.

The last but not least is that even if the arguer could prove all above, the passage only says that two third payments are higher than average but no facts show that those are higher than before wages the new work finders earned. Maybe the ones who have found new jobs because they just lower their wages require. If it is the case, although maybe they have got jobs, they did not find proper jobs as they wished which render the argument less convincing.

In conclusion, the writer’s argument is unpersuasive. To strengthen it he/she must provide more convincing evidence that the new job finders are the ones who lost their job during hard economic situation and the excited number how many the new job finders at end. To better evaluate the arguments we also need more information about the wage level before and now.



[ 本帖最后由 baiyu_2005 于 2007-6-16 00:35 编辑 ]

ILOVEISSUEUID: 2300195

请按照发帖格式发帖:handshake

菲子UID: 2311527

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.

In this letter, the arguer claims that the article gives the mistaken impression that many competent workers who lost jobs because of downsizing face serious economic environment, often lasting for years, before finding other suitable employment. To justify this argument the arguer cites a recent report which weakens the point of the article which there is a neat increased new jobs since 1992 and many workers who lost job have found new ones. Moreover these are two third payments are higher than average which are most full-time ones. However the argument suffers from several logical flaws which render it unconvincing. 新东方的经典开头，建议不要用了，都是一堆废话，我也曾深受毒害，在有限的时间里面怎么把自己最有思想的东西表达出来才是重要，思考越多，分数越好。一堆无用的话，只会空占住你的时间和文章。简单得把最重要的错误概括出来是比较好的做法，建议看看imong三部曲

The first problem involve the new increased jobs, it is possible that most these kind of jobs are not suitable for the workers who lost their jobs because of downsizing face serious economic hardship. 这句话是不是动词太多了？Maybe it is the unsuitable new job that is result of serious economic environment which calls for different positions or skills and lead to the many competent workers go out of jobs. 不理解 Without any evidence to ruling（rule） out the possible situation, the arguer could not strongly support his/her opinion. 你的意思似乎是指新的工作都是一些不适合工人的工作，能不能具体讲讲是什么类型的工作，否则1，这种观点让人不好理解，什么样的工作不适合人做？2，对于丰富你的论点有帮助

The second problem is about the "many" which appear in the passage above. Except from just this vague word the writer failed to provide other exactitude（exact） words（information, better?） to tell us how many at end workers find new jobs, especially that were forded out of positions during difficult economic situations. It is also possible that the new job finders are those who just do not want to still work in their old positions but not the ones the article cared about. 个人感觉这一点不错，很合理而且很有力If it is the case, the assertion would be weakened heavily.

The last but not least is that even if the arguer could prove all above, the passage only says that two third payments are higher than average but no facts show that those are higher than before wages the new work finders earned.这句话用一个主语比较好 but fails to show that...Maybe the ones who have found new jobs because they just lower their wages require( requirement). If it is the case, although maybe they have got jobs, they did not find proper jobs as they wished which render the argument less convincing.

In conclusion, the writer’s argument is unpersuasive. To strengthen it he/she must provide more convincing evidence that the new job finders are the ones who lost their job during hard economic situation and the excited number how many the new job finders at end. To better evaluate the arguments we also need more information about the wage level before and now.

菲子UID: 2311527

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.

In this letter, the arguer claims that the article gives the mistaken impression that many competent workers who lost jobs because of downsizing face serious economic environment, often lasting for years, before finding other suitable employment. To justify this argument the arguer cites a recent report which weakens the point of the article which there is a neat increased new jobs since 1992 and many workers who lost job have found new ones. Moreover these are two third payments are higher than average which are most full-time ones. However the argument suffers from several logical flaws which render it unconvincing. 新东方的经典开头，建议不要用了，都是一堆废话，我也曾深受毒害，在有限的时间里面怎么把自己最有思想的东西表达出来才是重要，思考越多，分数越好。一堆无用的话，只会空占住你的时间和文章。简单得把最重要的错误概括出来是比较好的做法，建议看看imong三部曲

The first problem involve the new increased jobs, it is possible that most these kind of jobs are not suitable for the workers who lost their jobs because of downsizing face serious economic hardship. 这句话是不是动词太多了？Maybe it is the unsuitable new job that is result of serious economic environment which calls for different positions or skills and lead to the many competent workers go out of jobs. 不理解 Without any evidence to ruling（rule） out the possible situation, the arguer could not strongly support his/her opinion. 你的意思似乎是指新的工作都是一些不适合工人的工作，能不能具体讲讲是什么类型的工作，否则1，这种观点让人不好理解，什么样的工作不适合人做？2，对于丰富你的论点有帮助

The second problem is about the "many" which appear in the passage above. Except from just this vague word the writer failed to provide other exactitude（exact） words（information, better?） to tell us how many at end workers find new jobs, especially that were forded out of positions during difficult economic situations. It is also possible that the new job finders are those who just do not want to still work in their old positions but not the ones the article cared about. 个人感觉这一点不错，很合理而且很有力If it is the case, the assertion would be weakened heavily.

The last but not least is that even if the arguer could prove all above, the passage only says that two third payments are higher than average but no facts show that those are higher than before wages the new work finders earned.这句话用一个主语比较好 but fails to show that...Maybe the ones who have found new jobs because they just lower their wages require( requirement). If it is the case, although maybe they have got jobs, they did not find proper jobs as they wished which render the argument less convincing.

In conclusion, the writer’s argument is unpersuasive. To strengthen it he/she must provide more convincing evidence that the new job finders are the ones who lost their job during hard economic situation and the excited number how many the new job finders at end. To better evaluate the arguments we also need more information about the wage level before and now.

baiyu_2005UID: 2255194

高手啊，我就是按照北美范文的模式写的，因为只看过这个。
以前写东西没有举事例的习惯，所以有的时候不自觉地就疏忽了，还总觉得凑不够字。
而且有的时候在刻意的写长句子，这就造成了有些句子别人读不懂，和句子中动词太多，我以后会主意的。
太感谢了