argument143 V6站队 7.30 还是高频！！！

mkb57288UID：2105771

Argument143  393 words
字数出奇的少，不过还是觉得把事情都受清楚了，大家发表一下议论吧
------题目------
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.
------正文------
By citing a report on economy, the author claims that the article on corporate downsizing is misleading, and implies that competent workers who lost jobs as a result of downsizing can get employed again with ease. The argument, however, absence of certain crucial detailed evidence and too vague statistics impair the credibility of the argument.

To begin with, the author simply equates the far more created jobs than eliminated ones with a lower unemployment rate. Yet by relying on such a questionable assumption, the author overlooks the possibility that that the demographic increase actually setoff extra job offering and bred a higher unemployment, let alone the assumption that newly-created jobs will suitable for the downsized workers.

Another problem with the argument is that due to absence of certain details about reemployments, it is impossible to evaluate the author’s assertion. "Many" is such a vague description upon which no firm conclusion can be drawn. Without certain statistics about the reemployments, the author claims too hastily that the situation for the laid-off is optimistic. Moreover, no evidence substantiates that the benefit of such reemployments is access to the downsized ones rather than other the unemployed. Further more, without any description about the time the laid-off spend in seeking another job, the author cannot confidently claim that the downsized workers can get employed again with ease.

The mere fact that two-thirds of the newly created jobs have been in above-average paid industries does not lend strong support to the author's claim. For the author provides no evidence that the jobs offered in high-paid industries are actually high in terms of revenue themselves. It is entirely possible that the jobs are just below the average wages. Nor does the fact that majority of that jobs are full-time ones justify the author's assertion. Since full-time jobs are not necessarily suitable for the downsized individuals, who are usually some managers of their previous corporation.

To sum up, the author fails to convince me that the article about the hardship of downsized individuals is misleading. To better bolster the argument, the author should preclude the influence of demographic increase and provide more accurate statistics about the cited report. To better evaluate the argument, it would be also useful to know the details about the job offering in the higher-paid industries.

mkb57288UID：2105771

看了一下真的好少，不知道哪里还能再加一下

hustzwjUID：203387

Argument143  393 words
字数出奇的少，不过还是觉得把事情都受清楚了，大家发表一下议论吧
------题目------
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（这是作者的结论）. But this impression is contradicted by a report（反驳点1）report on the United States economy, which found that （反驳点2）since 1992 far more jobs have been created than have been eliminated. The report also demonstrates that （反驳点3）many of those who lost their jobs have found new employment. （反驳点4）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.

首先分析作者的思路：
作者在开头提出他的结论：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（这是作者的结论）

为了支持他的结论，引用了3条理由：反驳点2，3，4；（反驳点1是固定的模式）
由于这三个的作者的支持点为并列关系，故不需要分析其一环扣一环的模式，可同步驳斥

------正文------

By citing a report on economy, the author claims that the article on corporate downsizing is misleading, and implies that competent workers who lost jobs as a result of downsizing can get employed again with ease. The argument, however, absence of certain crucial detailed evidence and too vague statistics impair the credibility of the argument.

在开头可以加一个关于report可信度的分析针对点1

To begin with, the author simply equates the far more created jobs than eliminated ones with a lower unemployment rate. Yet by relying on such a questionable assumption, the author overlooks the possibility that that the demographic increase actually setoff（表达了反驳点2的意思） extra job offering and bred a higher unemployment, let alone the assumption that newly-created jobs will suitable for the downsized workers.

这段主体改一下也许会好些：针对点2
The fact that …..does not mean that jobs available at that time could meet the demand of unemployment workers. Maybe though more jobs were created than eliminated, jobs available were only a few and most workers who had lost their jobs still could not find suitable jobs and faced economic hardship.

Another problem with the argument is that due to absence of certain details about reemployments, it is impossible to evaluate the author’s assertion.(这句的中心？) "Many" is such a vague description upon which no firm conclusion can be drawn. Without certain statistics about the reemployments, the author claims too hastily that the situation for the laid-off is optimistic. Moreover, no evidence substantiates that the benefit of such reemployments is access to the downsized ones rather than other the unemployed. Further more, without any description about the time the laid-off spend in seeking another job, the author cannot confidently claim that the downsized workers can get employed again with ease.
按照常规的分析，应该开始对点3的驳斥了。可否解释一下这段你在驳斥？
The mere fact that many of those who lost their jobs have found new employment does not rule out the possibility that these workers only found temporary jobs which might provide low salaries that were below the average level. That means they still could not discard the economic hardship.


The mere fact that two-thirds of the newly created jobs have been in above-average paid industries does not lend strong support to the author's claim. For the author provides no evidence that the jobs offered in high-paid industries are actually high in terms of revenue themselves. It is entirely possible that the jobs are just below the average wages. Nor does the fact that majority of that jobs are full-time ones justify the author's assertion. Since full-time jobs are not necessarily suitable for the downsized individuals, who are usually some managers of their previous corporation.
针对点4
(试着从1.另外的三分之一的数量也很多，这样many competent workers who lost jobs as a result of downsizing face serious economic hardship, often for years, before finding other suitable employment 就无法反驳了 2. Although 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., the author provides no information about the amount of these kinds of jobs. It was possible that many workers have to take part-time jobs)

To sum up, the author fails to convince me that the article about the hardship of downsized individuals is misleading. To better bolster the argument, the author should preclude the influence of demographic increase and provide more accurate statistics about the cited report. To better evaluate the argument, it would be also useful to know the details about the job offering in the higher-paid industries.

总体写的不错喔！:):):)

[ Last edited by hustzwj on 2005-7-31 at 03:59 ]