argument143 寄托4人组 8月23日作业

meautoUID: 2116250

Argument143 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 arguer concludes that competent workers who lost jobs due to corporate downsizing face no economic hardship, contrary to what the news article asserts. However, under a close scrutiny this argument is unconvincing in several aspects.

To begin with, the reliability of the cited report is open to question. However, we are not told whether the report is based on a meaningful survey. For example, does the report cover as many companies as to represent the United States economy in a national level? If the report is based on the employment situation of several large companies in city downtown, the arguer can not draw any insightful conclusion from it. What is more, many companies, for sake of reputation, might exaggerate their employment information to some extent. Unless the arguer proves that the report is representative and objective, we can not take his conclusion seriously.

Even if the report on the United State economy is reliable, its content remains dubious. Obviously, there is no specific data provided, although the arguer use terms like "more" and “two thirds”. Perhaps jobs created surpass ones that are eliminated only by a negligible extent, then for downsized workers to find new jobs is still hard. Granted that jobs are actually increasing, working opportunities do not necessarily increase, for population is also expanding. If people who enter the job market are better equipped with the knowledge and skills than downsized workers, they may take most new jobs. In a word, it is presumptuous to say that there are more jobs available for downsized workers according to the mere increase of new jobs.

Further more, the arguer unfairly assumes that people who lost their jobs find new ones that promise above-average wages.  Maybe on average it takes three or four years for downsized workers to find new jobs. On the other hand, these jobs might pay them incredibly little, just adequate for rent and bread. After all, although two-thirds of the newly created jobs tend to pay above-average wages, downsized workers may be excluded from these jobs for they are not qualified enough. Finally, whether the jobs are full-time or not contributes nothing to reduce the economic hardship faced with downsized workers. It is the pay that matters.

tangjihedeUID: 2107695

占

tangjihedeUID: 2107695

Argument143 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】[就算年内就能找到工作，也不能证明找到之前生活就不苦。孩子交学费。。。] 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】[many是多少？10％？30％？] of those who lost their jobs have found【 new employmen】t.【 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 arguer concludes that competent workers who lost jobs due to corporate downsizing face no economic hardship, contrary to what the news article asserts. However, under a close scrutiny this argument is unconvincing in several aspects.

To begin with, the reliability of the cited report is open to question. However[???怎么就转了？], we are not told whether the report is based on a meaningful survey. For example, does the report cover as many companies as to represent the United States economy in a national level? If the report is based on the employment situation of several large companies in city downtown, the arguer can not draw any insightful conclusion from it. What is more, many companies, for sake of reputation, might exaggerate their employment information to some extent. Unless the arguer proves that the report is representative and objective, we can not take [his] conclusion seriously.

Even if the report on the United State economy is reliable, its content remains dubious. Obviously, there is no specific data provided, although the arguer use terms like "more" and “two thirds”.[ Perhaps jobs created surpass ones that are eliminated only by a negligible extent,没看懂] then for downsized workers to find new jobs is still hard. Granted that jobs are actually increasing, working opportunities do not necessarily increase, for population is[might be] also expanding. If people who enter the job market are better equipped with the knowledge and skills than downsized workers, they may take most new jobs.[分两个层次展开：1。人口基数在增长。2。就算人口没涨，这些工作可能都提供给年轻人了。] In a word, it is presumptuous to say that there are more jobs available for downsized workers according to the mere increase of new jobs.

Further more, the arguer unfairly assumes that people who lost their jobs find new ones that promise above-average wages.  Maybe on average it takes[ three or four years这是author攻击原作者的。意思是说就业形式这么好，根本用不了多长时间就能找到工作。所以你得说清楚为什么。] for downsized workers to find new jobs. On the other hand, these jobs might pay them incredibly little, just adequate for rent and bread. After all, although two-thirds of the newly created jobs tend to pay above-average wages, downsized workers may be excluded from these jobs for they are not qualified enough. Finally, whether the jobs are full-time or not contributes nothing to reduce the economic hardship faced with downsized workers. It is the pay that matters.

[结尾？？最后一点可以再展开一下，清理一下条理。我总觉得在段内也可以用even granted。。even granted，一般来说更清楚些。还有两点可以攻击，我标在题目上了。]

meautoUID: 2116250

FT,不是没找出来
没有时间写啊,老大!!!!

tangjihedeUID: 2107695

ft，你这不是还没考呢么，告诉你还有什么可以写考试时碰上了你不就赚大了。