ARGUMENT143 [REBORN FROM THE ASHES] TASK ONE by 正常点

zhengchangdianUID: 2563082

Argument 143:
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.
.

zhengchangdianUID: 2563082

In this argument, the author claims that the notion is misleading that corporate downsizing leads to the unemployment and the years’ economic hardship of many competent workers. To justify this recommendation, he cites the results of a recent report on the United States economy whose assumptions contradict the article. However, there is none logical convincing assumptions on which the motion could stand.

The fact that the arguer acquiesces the rationality of corporate downsizing is entirely unreasonable. As known to all, the act of downsizing is the process in which corporations deliberately reduce the number of their employees. No one could show no sympathy when someone was fired not because of his incapable work, but for some other unknown reasons. What’s more, the unemployed ones often could hardly find suitable jobs in years of time because of the adverse record, which would leads to their serious economic hardship. At the same time, this circumstance could easily cause numerous social problems, and even evolve into secure issues during a long period of time. However, the author fails to provide their average time spending in getting a new job and overlooks the living standard of the discharged citizens during their hunting job period. All of these facts could firmly cast doubt on the rationality of downsizing, while the speaker gives it implicit consent.

And the assumption, according to the passage, is that far more jobs have been created for the dismissed workers. Unfortunately, this is not often the case. In fact, there is none causal relationship between the number of new jobs and the number of unemployed citizens who would find work. To begin with, the speaker fails to show the precise number of new jobs and the population who need jobs. It is of great possibility that the increasing population is much beyond new jobs the society could offer, although the author contends far more jobs have been created than have been eliminated since 1992. Secondly, the so-called new jobs would not only be provided for someone who lost jobs; workers who mater a special skill and undergraduates could also share the same opportunity as the dismissed ones. The paragraph given merely scratches the surface of what must be said about the reality of the situation. Much more work is still need to justify the assumption.

Another important thing to consider is the living condition of the workers whose wage is below the average-level. It would be an open question that whether the rest one-third residents should be intentionally neglected. The author undeserved slipped the treatment level and working condition of them. Besides, the ratio of part-time job deserves to take into consideration.

In a word, the argument is unreasonable in the absence of persuasive evidence. In fact, a complete research of the dismissed workers life is needed before the acceptance of the conclusion. To consolidate the analysis, the arguer would have to present more information concerning the relationship between the number of new jobs and the discharged workers as well as their life circumstances.

zhengchangdianUID: 2563082

有拍必回哦！:lol