ARGUMENT143 [REBORN FROM THE ASHES] TASK ONE by WilliamLeha

williamlehaUID：2599574

2009.11.23  

Time: Not Limitted

Words: 567

新主楼转战地下室熬夜写完，写到后面就比较晕了...

The argument states that the recent article on corporate downsizing in the United States is misleading. The arguer cites report from United States economy to illustrate that the article gives the mistaken impression that many competent workers who lost jobs spend several years finding other suitable employment. However, the unrelated concepts of more job offering and employment cannot contradict the phenomenon mentioned in the article. Meanwhile, the incompleteness and vague data of finding employment in the report weaken the comparison between the description in the article and the fact in the report.

To start with, more job offering does not necessarily indicate the less unemployment. As a matter of fact, it is quite normal that more jobs are created each year, but the number of unemployment people is increasing simultaneously, since there are more students stepping into society each year. Therefore, more job offering cannot come to the conclusion that unemployment people can find a job easily, considering there is a chance that the speed of increasing unemployment is faster than the speed of increasing job offering, which means even more people cannot get a job. In addition, there is no detail of the new job offering. It is possible that the new job offering are all for blue-collar while the eliminated jobs are for white-collar. In this case, the white-collar may not take these new jobs. Lacking the analysis of increasing unemployment and the details of new jobs, the author provides no evidence that more job offering results in less unemployment.

Another flaw that weakens the logic of the argument is that the arguer fails to provide complete information for new employment. On the one hand, there is no information of the time, which people who lost their jobs need to find another job. On the other hand, it also lacks the demonstration of people’s contentment about new job. Actually, the description from the article emphasizes that it often takes several years to find another suitable job. Perhaps, it is true that people find jobs quickly under the press of life, whereas the new job is not suitable. It is equally likely that people finally find their desirable jobs after patiently hunting, continuing above five years. Obviously, both situations mentioned above cannot deny the description in the article.

Before I come to my conclusion, it is necessary to point out another flaw that too much vague data in the argument decline its power to persuade readers. At first, the arguer does not provide the accurate speed of increasing job offering. If the speed is too slow, it naturally devotes little contribution to solving the issue of unemployment. Secondly, since people hold different comprehension to the word “many”, the argument confuses readers that what is the indeed percentage of people having found new employment. Apparently, the lack of numeric data will lead to the different recognition to the report, which makes the argument less convincible.

To sum up, the argument simply treats more job offerings as less unemployment and the incomplete information with vague data declines the quality of argumentation. It is better to analyze the situation thoroughly after gathering complete information about the new employment before the comparison between the facts in the report and the description in the article. In addition, if the author can tell readers a more distinct number rather an abstract description, the report from United States economy can be more persuadable.