Argument143

@amy@UID: 209096

题目
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.

翻译：  
你们最近关于美国集体裁员的文章是有误导性的。该文章给人们一种错误的印象，即很多在企业面临严重经济困难的时候裁员而导致失业的有能力的工人通常要用几年的时间找到另一份合适的工作。但这种感觉与最近一次关于美国经济的报告相矛盾，报告发现自1992年以来新增的就业机会数量远超过消失的岗位数量。该报告也指出很多失业人员已经找到了新工作。新增就业机会中有三分之二是那些提供高于平均水平薪酬的企业提供的，而且这些岗位绝大多数是全职工作。

**********************************************************
提纲
（1）虽然新增的就业机会数量远超过消失的岗位数量，但不知道与失业人数相比如何，也不知道超出的就业机会是否能够安排那么多的失业人员；
（2）报告说很多失业人员已经找到了新工作，这并没有和报纸的文章矛盾，而且报告也没有指出失业人员过了多久找到新工作，是否是找到合适的工作。
（3）新增的就业机会虽然有2/3的薪资高于平均水平，但这些工作可能要求比较高，不一定适合众多的失业人员。

**********************************************************
字数：452 words
时间：头晕，写了很久:L
**********************************************************
正文
In this argument, the speaker asserts that the recent article written by the editor of a national newspaper is misleading and contradicts with a recent report, that is, he thinks that the current employment situation is far from as the impression that the article gives. On first glance, the speaker's assertion seems reasonable, but after careful study, we can find out several flaws as follows.

First of all, although the number of newly created jobs is far more than the number of eliminated jobs, the report does not provide the accurate number. If the number of eliminated jobs is about 3 or 4, and the new job number is about 20 or 30, then it is true that the latter is much larger than the former, but when compared with the numerous employment people such as 2000 or 3000, it is too small, so the fact cannot be strong evidence. In addition, granted that the newly created jobs do have a great amount, we do not know the number of needed employees, so whether the new jobs can provide enough opportunities for so many unemployed people is open to doubt.

Secondly, the report points out that many people have found new job after lost their jobs, which is in fact not contradicted by the article because the article also expresses the similar meaning. Moreover, the report does not show some necessary information to support the speaker’s assertion. For example, how long have past before the unemployed people find the new job? If most of the people have to spend several years to find a new job, then what the article says is completely equal to what the report says. What is more, are they content with their new employment? It is highly possible that many people have to choose an improper job under the pressure of living.

Last but not the least, the report tells that 2/3 of the newly created jobs are in industries. It is possible that this kind of jobs have relative high demands, such as high education, expert knowledge, and the like, while most of the unemployed people undertook the service jobs and do not have the relative knowledge. Thus, even if they can pay above-average wages, maybe few unemployed people can get the jobs indeed. Moreover, there are still 1/3 of the new jobs only tend to pay below-average salary, and whether the salary can afford the workers’ basic living costs is not mentioned in the report.

To sum up, the speaker mistakenly concludes the article collides with the report, and wrongly estimates the employment situation only depending on some figures mentioned in the report, so he has to conduct a detailed invest before making his conclusion.

jingjingtousUID: 2164820

我跟你的批判点是一样的，只是不知道the majority of new jobs are full-time不知道怎么批，只是说与就业形势不乐观没关系就稍稍带过了，你怎么想的？

bunnymz2005UID: 2146758

正文
In this argument, the speaker asserts that the recent article written by the editor of a national newspaper is misleading and contradicts with a recent report, that is, he thinks that the current employment situation is far from as the impression that the article gives. On first glance, the speaker's assertion seems reasonable, but after careful study, we can find out several flaws as follows.(开头很简洁，赞！)

First of all, although the number of newly created jobs is far more than the number of eliminated jobs, the report does not provide the accurate number. If the number of eliminated jobs is about 3 or 4, and the new job number is about 20 or 30, then it is true that the latter is much larger than the former, but when compared with the numerous employment people such as 2000 or 3000, it is too small, so the fact cannot be strong evidence. （In great detail, 真的很不错！）In addition, granted that the newly created jobs do have a great amount, we do not know the number of needed employees（people who badly need jobs）, so whether the new jobs can provide enough opportunities for so many unemployed people is open to doubt.

Secondly, the report points out that many people have found new job after lost their jobs, which is in fact not contradicted by the article because the article also expresses the similar meaning. Moreover, the report does not show some (any) necessary information to support the speaker’s assertion. For example, how long have past before the unemployed people find the new job?(How long does it take for the unemployed people to find a new job?) If most of the people have to spend several years to find a new job, then what the article says is completely equal to what the report says. What is more, are they content with their new employment? It is highly possible that many people have to choose an improper job under the pressure of living.(这段有些空洞，再详细一些就更好了！)
Last but not the least, the report tells that 2/3 of the newly created jobs are in industries. It is possible that this kind of jobs have relative high demands（demanding requirements）, such as high education, expert knowledge, and the like, while most of the unemployed people undertook the service jobs and do not have the relative knowledge. Thus, even if they（指代不明，改为employers in industries） can pay above-average wages, maybe few unemployed people can get the jobs indeed. Moreover, there are still 1/3 of the new jobs only tend to pay below-average salary, and whether the salary can afford the workers’ basic living costs is not mentioned in the report.

To sum up, the speaker mistakenly concludes the article collides with the report, and wrongly estimates the employment situation only depending on some figures mentioned in the report, so he has to conduct a detailed invest before making his conclusion.

基本错误都找到了，但批驳仍需深入，像body1 就很不错。