argument143 泡面组8/18，求拍必回

real_vcUID: 195631

Argument143  
------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------
The author concludes that a recent article on corporate downsizing in the United Sates is misleading. To support his claim, the author shows us a report about the United States economy. In addition, he cites that among the newly created jobs many of them offer the above-average wages and full-time jobs. After carefully examining it, we can find several critical flaws in this letter.

First of all, the validity of the report is dubious. Lacking information about who conducted the report or how the report was conducted, any conclusion which rests on the report can not be drawn. If the report was done by some students as their coursework, its reliability and authority is skeptical.  Even if it was conducted by the authoritative organization in the United States, what the report found was still meaningless.  That more jobs were newly created than lost does not mean the unemployed can be rehired. It is entirely possible that far more people need to find jobs and the increment exceeds the jobs which are newly created. Thus, the report fails to indicate any reasonable information about reemployment.

Secondly, we must pay more attention on the number of those who have been reemployed. The author only tells us "many of those'. It is a vague concept. How many does this "many" mean? If 20 thousand of competent workers lost their jobs, for example, but only 2 thousand of them have find new jobs, we still can say "many". However, it is merely one of tenth of those unemployed truly find the new jobs. Still, the rest are much more than those who have been reemployed.  Therefore, the data is too inexplicit to demonstrate that the unemployed can find their new employment.

Finally, the author fails to indicate the clear connection between the reemployment and the new jobs which offer above-average payment. It is very reasonable that these new employment may have some limitation such as the type of work, the age of worker, or other requirement of technique. Perhaps, most of competent workers who lost jobs were over 50 years old, yet the employment requires workers below 40 years old. Also, maybe some are skillful in operating the classical machine lathe, but the factories need those who are familiar with modern numerical-controlled lathe which requires specialization in programming. Thus, even tow-thirds of the newly created jobs provide comparatively high salaries, it is likely that the unemployed doesn't suit the jobs.

To sum up, the argument is doubtful.  To strengthen his assertion, the author should provide us more detailed information about the report such as the conductor and the data of the unemployed. In addition, the author should show us the evidence on the percentage of those unemployed who have found new jobs. Also, we appreciate if the author can put any evidence about the newly created jobs suitable for those unemployed.

bishao422UID: 204362

The author concludes that a recent article on corporate downsizing in the United Sates is misleading. To support his claim, the author shows us a report about the United States economy. In addition, he cites that among the newly created jobs many of them offer the above-average wages and full-time jobs. After carefully examining it, we can find several critical flaws in this letter.

First of all, the validity of the report is dubious. Lacking information about who conducted the report or how the report was conducted, any conclusion which rests on the report can not be drawn. If the report was done by some students as their coursework, its reliability and authority is skeptical.  Even if it was conducted by the authoritative organization in the United States, what the report found was still meaningless.  That more jobs were newly created than lost does not mean the unemployed can be rehired. It is entirely possible that far more people need to find jobs and the increment exceeds the jobs which are newly created. Thus, the report fails to indicate any reasonable information about reemployment. 还有一点看看行不:article中提到的是many competent workers, 而report中提到的是United States, 可能欠着只是就几个具体的行业而言而不是整个美国经济 所以这个report不具有普遍性

Secondly, we must pay more attention on the number of those who have been reemployed. The author only tells us "many of those'. It is a vague concept. How many does this "many" mean? If 20 thousand of competent workers lost their jobs, for example, but only 2 thousand of them have find new jobs, we still can say "many". However, it is merely one of tenth of those unemployed truly find the new jobs. Still, the rest are much more than those who have been reemployed.  Therefore, the data is too inexplicit to demonstrate that the unemployed can find their new employment.

Finally, the author fails to indicate the clear connection between the reemployment and the new jobs which offer above-average payment. It is very reasonable that these new employment may have some limitation such as the type of work, the age of worker, or other requirement of technique. Perhaps, most of competent workers who lost jobs were over 50 years old, yet the employment requires workers below 40 years old. Also, maybe some are skillful in operating the classical machine lathe, but the factories need those who are familiar with modern numerical-controlled lathe which requires specialization in programming. Thus, even tow-thirds of the newly created jobs provide comparatively high salaries, it is likely that the unemployed doesn't suit the jobs.

To sum up, the argument is doubtful.  To strengthen his assertion, the author should provide us more detailed information about the report such as the conductor and the data of the unemployed. In addition, the author should show us the evidence on the percentage of those unemployed who have found new jobs. Also, we appreciate if the author can put any evidence about the newly created jobs suitable for those unemployed.

看完了 却发现没得说哦 晕死了 呵呵 不错不错

real_vcUID: 195631

谢谢夸奖阿
你说的那个普遍性可以
不过我觉得我这篇里面不需要了，这样三点说透了应该够了，而且还有时间问题，如果把那点写进去，时间一紧写得不好不如不要