argument143 泡面阿~~

bishao422UID: 204362

------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------

In this argument, the author concludes that the article on corporate downsizing in the United States is misleading. To support it, the author cites a recent report on the United States economy, which includes several evidences. However, careful scrutiny this argument reveals that the conclusion relies on several unproven assumption, and there is unpersuasive to some extent. I will clarify my stand as follows.

To begin with, the report amounts to scant evidence for the author's implicit conclusion that 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 other suitable employment. Whether the report is creditable enough is open to doubt. If this report is unreal, the result of the report is unrepresentative.

Secondly, even if the report is creditable, the author also unfairly infers that this report can contradict the article's impression. The author ignores that the report reported on the Unites State, but the article never reveals that it reports on the whole country, maybe it just reports on many companies. The report can represent the total complexion of the overall country, but it can’t demonstrate that many companies should be same as the whole country. The conclusion that many competent workers who can't find job for several years just show the hardship of some industry economy not the all country economy. The argument, which relies on this report, is unwarranted.

In addition, even assuming that the report can represent every situation, the author concludes too hastily that the article's impression is wrong because that more jobs have been created than have been eliminated and 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. But this need not be the case, the author overlooks other possibilities that perhaps the two-thirds of the newly created jobs was only provided by the high-tech industries, such as electron and Internet, the other traditional industries still face serious economic hardship and can’t provide more chances of jobs. Or perhaps although the more jobs have been created than have been eliminated, as we know not only the workers who lost their jobs in a downsizing but also many new young people need jobs, there are not enough jobs can be created for most those lost their jobs in a downsizing. Without ruling out such possibilities, the author can't convince me to believe this conclusion.

To sum up, the author's argument is logically unsound. To strengthen it, he should demonstrate more evidence and information.

硬柿子UID: 204138

------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------

In this argument, the author concludes that the article on corporate downsizing in the United States is misleading. To support it, the author cites a recent report on the United States economy, which includes several evidences. However, careful scrutiny 少了介词 this argument reveals that the conclusion relies on several unproven assumption, and there is unpersuasive to some extent这句话有点问题 . I will clarify my stand as follows.

To begin with, the report amounts to scant evidence for the author's implicit conclusion that 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 other suitable employment. Whether the report is creditable enough is open to doubt. If this report is unreal, the result of the report is unrepresentative. 〈能够点出报告是否具有代表性，很好，是不还能再展开点~~

Secondly, even if the report is creditable, the author also unfairly infers that this report can contradict the article's impression. The author ignores that the report reported on the Unites State, but the article never reveals that it reports on the whole country, maybe it just reports on many companies. The report can represent the total complexion of the overall country, but it can’t demonstrate that many companies should be same as the whole country. The conclusion that many competent workers who can't find job for several years just show the hardship of some industry economy not the all country economy. The argument, which relies on this report, is unwarranted.

In addition, even assuming that the report can represent every situation, the author concludes too hastily that the article's impression is wrong because that more jobs have been created than have been eliminated and 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. But this need not be the case, the author overlooks other possibilities that perhaps the two-thirds of the newly created jobs was only provided by the high-tech industries, such as electron and Internet, the other traditional industries still face serious economic hardship and can’t provide more chances of jobs. Or perhaps although the more jobs have been created than have been eliminated, as we know not only the workers who lost their jobs in a downsizing but also many new young people need jobs, there are not enough jobs can be created for most those lost their jobs in a downsizing. Without ruling out such possibilities, the author can't convince me to believe this conclusion.

To sum up, the author's argument is logically unsound. To strengthen it, he should demonstrate more evidence and information. 这个结尾是不是有点少了，我有时候时间来不及，就一句话带过~~感觉文章不够丰满