Argument143 kito 小组作业 多谢修改^-^

bunnymz2005UID: 2146758

【题目】
Argument143（2005年2-9月总频24次）
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.
************************************************************************************
【Outline】
1．        信的作者没有给出关于人口增长和劳动力人数的增长方面的信息，因而尽管工作岗位多了可能劳动力增长得更多，导致还是有相当一部分工人找不到工作。
2．        报道说好多事业的人都找到新的工作这一点与文章也并不矛盾， 因为我们并没有被告知这些人是在多久之后找到工作的。
3．        作者不能保证失业的人都是属于industries的，工作的行业不一样，可能好多是从事服务业的。如果是这样不就正好应验了报纸上的文章的观点。
4．        工资高到什么程度呢？是否工资高于平均工资就意味着经济上不困难呢？
************************************************************************************
【正文】
Before accepting that the newspaper's recent article on corporate downsizing in the United States is misleading at the first glance, the argument should be scrutinized from several aspects. The author seems to fundamentally misunderstand the report and thus draw a conclusion which is not the case.

First of all, as mentioned in this argument the author claims that newly created jobs are far more than those eliminated since 1992. However, the author fails to take into account the total number of laborers who are in need of work. In fact, it is entirely possible that the number of laborers who want jobs is also increasing as the increase of population. For that matter, we can not assure that more jobs would alleviate the pressure on the issue of unemployment. Perhaps the laborers increase so fast that the jobs supplied seem to be comparatively diminutive. If so, the report is just in accord with the impression that many competent workers lost their jobs as result of relatively shortage of jobs. Since the author fails to respond to this concern, the assertion that the article and the report are contradictory with each other is premature at best.

In addition, the report that many of those who are out of work have found new jobs also does not contradict the article in the newspaper. Indeed, we are not informed of the time it takes for the unemployed workers to find new positions. In that case, we have good reasons to assume that the people who lost jobs cost considerable time on obtaining new works. Moreover, even eliminating the concern about time the author would nevertheless be perfunctory to assume that finding a job means going through a economics hardship. What if the pay is not good, the price of commodities is relatively high, the tax rate is increasing beyond the normal level. The emergence of each of these possibilities would weaken the conclusion downright.

Besides, we might also think about the evidence that two thirds of the newly created jobs are in industries. Common sense tells us that the jobs in industries usually call for the workers who master certain skills; however the author provides no evidence that the unemployed workers do have such skills. There is a good chance that many of the people who lost their jobs are from service industries which hardly require skills. In that case, even if the available positions are affluent there would nevertheless be a huge scale of unemployment.

Finally, regarding the wages the author takes it for granted that the pay above the average level implies living in good conditions. However, this may not be the case. Perhaps the price of water, electricity and the like is high that the money people earn is just adequate to cover these fees. Moreover, we are not informed about the exact average level of wages. Hence, it is entirely possible that the pay people get is still low though it is higher than the average level.

To sum up, before putting forward a suspicion people should analyze the problem carefully and comprehensively, otherwise the argument would be logically untenable. Obviously, the author of this argument fails to do that.

lawrence1984UID: 178326

一会看，占各座。

lawrence1984UID: 178326

Argument143 kito 小组作业 多谢修改^-^

【题目】
Argument143（2005年2-9月总频24次）
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.
************************************************************************************
【Outline】
1．        信的作者没有给出关于人口增长和劳动力人数的增长方面的信息，因而尽管工作岗位多了可能劳动力增长得更多，导致还是有相当一部分工人找不到工作。
2．        报道说好多事（失）业的人都找到新的工作这一点与文章也并不矛盾， 因为我们并没有被告知这些人是在多久之后找到工作的。
3．        作者不能保证失业的人都是属于industries的，工作的行业不一样，可能好多是从事服务业的。如果是这样不就正好应验了报纸上的文章的观点。
4．        工资高到什么程度呢？是否工资高于平均工资就意味着经济上不困难呢？
************************************************************************************
【正文】
Before accepting that the newspaper's recent article on corporate downsizing in the United States is misleading at the first glance, the argument should be scrutinized from several aspects. The author seems to fundamentally misunderstand the report and thus draw a conclusion which is not the case.（使用了简洁的开头， 入题快, 好！）

（First of all, as mentioned in this argument the author claims that newly created jobs are far more than those eliminated since 1992. However, the author fails to take into account the total number of laborers who are in need of work. In fact, it is entirely possible that the number of laborers who want jobs is also increasing as the increase of population.）（安排了驳斥的重点，很好，对于数据的驳斥往往很重要，也很容易写出彩） For that matter, we can not assure that more jobs would alleviate the pressure on the issue of unemployment. Perhaps the laborers increase so fast that the jobs supplied seem to be comparatively diminutive. If so, the report is just in accord with the impression that many competent workers lost their jobs as result of relatively shortage of jobs. Since the author fails to respond to this concern, the assertion that the article and the report are contradictory with each other is premature at best.（驳斥注意到了细节，很具体，这段写的很成功！词汇也很专业，学习中…………）

In addition, the report that many of those who are out of work have found new jobs also does not contradict the article in the newspaper. Indeed, we are not informed of the time it takes for the unemployed workers to find new positions. In that case, we have good reasons to assume that the people who lost jobs cost considerable time on obtaining new works. Moreover, （让步，好！）even eliminating the concern about time（，） the author would nevertheless be perfunctory to assume that （finding a job means going through a economics hardship.）（going through 用的很好，我就想不到，学习中……） What if the pay is not good, the price of commodities is relatively high, the tax rate is increasing beyond the normal level. The emergence of each of these possibilities would weaken the conclusion downright.（这一段驳斥全面，很好）

Besides, we might also think about the evidence that two thirds of the newly created jobs are in industries. Common sense tells us that the jobs in industries usually call for the workers who master certain skills; however the author provides no evidence that the unemployed workers do have such skills. There is a good chance that many of the people who lost their jobs are from service industries which hardly require skills. In that case, even if the available positions are affluent （，）there would nevertheless be a huge scale of unemployment. （很好，但是要注意长句使用过程中标点符号的运用，这样文章的就更具有可读性。）

Finally, regarding the wages the author takes it for granted that the pay above the average level implies living in good conditions. However, this may not be the case. Perhaps the price of water, electricity and the like is high that the money people earn is just adequate to cover these fees. Moreover, we are not informed about the exact average level of wages. Hence, it is entirely possible that the pay people get is still low though it is higher than the average level.

To sum up, before putting forward a suspicion people should analyze the problem carefully and comprehensively, otherwise the argument would be logically untenable. Obviously, the author of this argument fails to do that.
这篇文章的驳斥点全面，语言专业，驳斥深入具体，写得很好，但是如果能够多提及文章的中心，即关于competent workers 是否承受economic hardship,就会显得更突出！个人意见！还有就是注意句子写得太长时适当的增加标点会使句子更流畅！