0906G同主题argument143

kk002UID: 2610827

Argument143. The following appeared as a leader to the editor of a national newspaper.
“Your recent article on corporate downsizing* in the United States is misleading. The article gives the mistaken imjpression 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 majotity of these jobs are full-time.”

Downsizing is the process in which corparations deliberately reduce the number of their employees.

In this argument, the arguer tries to convince us that the recent article on corporate downsizing in the United States is misleading. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer cites the result of a recent report on the United States economy. What’s more, the arguer points out that 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. However, a careful examination of the argument reveals the conclusion suffers from several critical fallacies.

In the first place, there is no evidence to justify that the amount of job created is more than the number of people who are unemployed. Although more jobs have been created than have been eliminated since 1992 in the United States, this does not necessarily indicate that the jobs created can meet the demand of the unemployed workers. For instance, there are many graduates from colleges and universities, which might deteriorate the situation of employment. Without a precise of the amount of jobs created, the mere fact that more jobs have been created than have been eliminated might make no sense.

In the second place, the arguer fails to provide information concerning how long many of those who lost their jobs found their jobs and whether they have faced serious econmic hardship before finding their new jobs. Perhaps it takes them one year or more time to find their new jobs. And we also have good reason to believe that they might live a miserable life before finding their new jobs. Without taking into account these or some other conditions, the fact that many of those who lost their jobs have found new employment might lend little support to the conclusion..

Last but not least, the arguer does not take into consideration that many of the newly created jobs might have to accept under-average wages jobs, and others might have to work part-time. In this case, there might be good reason for those competent to worry about their lives if they lose their jobs.

In conclusion, the argument is not persuasive as it stands. To better evaluate the conclusion, the arguer has to provide more information concerning that the jobs created can meet the demand. What’s more, before I can be convinced,.the arguer has to investigate the condition of people’s life before finding new jobs and their wages after finding new jobs.

irvine666UID: 2575525

In this argument, the arguer tries to convince us that the recent article on corporate downsizing in the United States is misleading. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer cites the result of a recent report on the United States economy. What’s more, the arguer points out that 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. However, a careful examination of the argument reveals the conclusion suffers from several critical fallacies. (从第一段可以看出楼主用的模板句太多，我估计下面也是一样的，实际上，因为我本人一句模板都没有记过，因此我都觉得熟悉的模板句，那是在我批过的文章里面出现的相当多的句子了，楼主如果时间不多的话不妨换一换...)

In the first place, there is no evidence to justify that the amount of job created is more than the number of people who are unemployed. Although more jobs have been created than have been eliminated since 1992 in the United States, this does not necessarily indicate that the jobs created can meet the demand of the unemployed workers. For instance, there are many graduates from colleges and universities, which might deteriorate the situation of employment. (这里少一句拉回来的：so, the unemployment might not be able to get job in a short time)Without a precise of the amount of jobs created, the mere fact that more jobs have been created than have been eliminated might make no sense.(此外我觉得你这段欠缺了一个对精确性的描述的他因，因为不论是你开头句或者结尾句都提到了number, amount)

In the second place, the arguer fails to provide information concerning how long many of those who lost their jobs found their jobs and whether they have faced serious econmic hardship before finding their new jobs(这个是没看懂题目，质疑了一个作者根本没有提到的理由). （思维跳跃，这里应该再来一个总论时间性的论述）Perhaps it takes them one year or more time to find their new jobs. And we also have good reason to believe that they might live a miserable life before finding their new jobs.(这句话拿来证明什么的？) Without taking into account these or some other(画蛇添足的一个词了) conditions, the fact that many of those who lost their jobs have found new employment might lend little support to the conclusion..

Last but not least, the arguer does not take into consideration that many of the newly created jobs might have to accept under-average wages jobs, and others might have to work part-time. In this case, there might be good reason for those competent to worry about their lives if they lose their jobs.(这段除了一个开头一个结尾，啥都没有呀...怎么说服别人...)

In conclusion, the argument is not persuasive as it stands. To better evaluate the conclusion, the arguer has to provide more information concerning that the jobs created can meet the demand. What’s more, before I can be convinced,.the arguer has to investigate the condition of people’s life before finding new jobs and their wages after finding new jobs.

kk002UID: 2610827

2# irvine666
谢谢irvine666(Irvine)能够抽时间帮我改作文!!

1.对于开头用过多的模板我也注意到了，可是感觉挺难改的。
2.正文第二段：In the second place, the arguer fails to provide information concerning how long many of those who lost their jobs found their jobs and whether they have faced serious econmic hardship before finding their new jobs(这个是没看懂题目，质疑了一个作者根本没有提到的理由).
我感觉从原文
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.
作者说“工人在找到合适工作之前面临严重经济困难”是一个mistaken impression，个人感觉可以对这一点进行质疑吧！后面作者提到工人可以找到工作，但是没有提到之前生活是不是十分窘迫。