蹬蹬蹬～0906G同主题ARGUMENT143又来啦 Lionheart2010

lionheart2010UID: 2602519

TOPIC: 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.

In this argument, the author tries to refute the former assertion by the means of quoting a recent report on the United States economy. At first glance, the author's reasoning seems to be appealing, while clearly examine the author's reasoning, we may find that it is unconvincing. The argument contains several facts that are questionable.

First of all, the author merely listing the fact that since 1992 far more jobs have been created than have been eliminated. But does the win out include the people who lost their job before the year 1992. If not, there is reason to laugh up one's sleeves, for the total number of unemployment might have increase, which means situation have not turn better.

Secondly, the author overlooks the qualification and the consist of people being hired in the industries while merely keep an eye on the above-average wages and the ratio of jobs newly created. People being hired in the industries probably require some kind of qualification certificate, which is not likely for an individual to happen to have. And the arguer also ignores one fact that not only people who have lost their need to find a job, but also the undergraduates need them as well. The fact makes the author’s optimism meaningless.

Last but not the least, all the arguments that the author formulated have nothing to do with the hardship and the long period of time before a person finding another suitable employment. All the formulation cannot disprove the fact mentioned above.

In sum, the author failed to refute the report's claim. To better evaluate, he/she need more precisely evidence that indicate people who lost their jobs can find another one in industries or another areas quickly and have higher salaries.

irvine666UID: 2575525

In this argument, the author tries to refute the former assertion by the means of quoting a recent report on the United States economy. At first glance, the author's reasoning seems to be appealing(这个词用的不太对，appealing是指有优点有长处，所以吸引眼球), while clearly examine the author's reasoning（it就行，不然重复了）, we may find that it is(这个也可以直接用it, find it+adj就行，不需要用从句的时候，尽量少用) unconvincing. (这个地方是属于逻辑跳跃了，前面一句话还在讲reasoning,后面马上跳到argument本身，而没有任何的过渡)The argument contains several facts that are questionable. (总的来讲开头不错～)

First of all, the author merely listing the fact that since 1992 far more jobs have been created than have been eliminated. But does the win out（这是个动词短语，不能做主语的） include the people who lost their job before the year 1992(恩，这个是属于批调查的背景了，其实我是不推荐的). If not, there is reason to laugh up one's sleeves, for the total number of unemployment might have increase, which means situation have not turn better. （而且这段，最重要的是，批的不是作者为了批驳报纸上的文章所提出的观点，我们是为了against作者的观点，换句话说就是for报纸的观点，报纸上提出3个观点：1.downsizing,2.lost job,3.last for years，并没有说道situation have not turn better）

Secondly, the author overlooks the qualification and the consist of（这个是由...组成，强调个体组成群体） people being hired in the industries while merely keep an eye on the above-average wages and the ratio of jobs newly created. （看，上句还在说author和他的观点：被雇佣者的组成和...证书？，马上就跳转到讲people了，逻辑跳跃）People being hired in the industries probably require some kind of qualification certificate(这个是属于不合理他因，显得你的思维很混乱，事实上，这篇文章里面的内容，和qualification certificate是几乎没有关系的), which is not likely for an individual to happen to(be likely to 和 happen to是两个incompatible的东西，怎么能用在一起) have. And the arguer also ignores one fact that not only people who have lost their need(这个...写反了吧) to find a job, but also the undergraduates need them as well.(为什么undergraduates也need?最好在后面解释一下否则论述很不深入的，否则要是我直接说：这个人需要洗澡了，你会相信么？除非我摆出理由：这个人身上有臭味，头发蓬乱...等等的，你才会信对吧？其实写Argument也是一样的道理) The fact makes the author’s optimism meaningless.

Last but not the least, all the arguments that the author formulated have nothing to do with the hardship and the long period of time before a person finding another suitable employment. All the formulation cannot disprove the fact mentioned above. (这段同样面临上述的问题：没有理由，没有解释，显得很肤浅)

In sum, the author failed to refute the report's claim. To better evaluate, he/she need more precisely evidence that indicate people who lost their jobs can find another one in industries or another areas quickly and have higher salaries.

楼主在这篇文章里面，没有用模板，这是值得称赞的一件事～
但是总的来讲，楼主对argument的认识还不够深入，尤其是逻辑上，发展的非常肤浅，建议你有空去研究一下ETS的官方范文，搞清它的基本结构，论证方式等等。