0906G同主题ARGUMENT143 by cmj

ddcmj519UID: 176326

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.

分析下来，绿色的三个reason 都是为了反对红色三个字的真实性，故在分别攻击reason的时候，应该着重从红色三个字的角度分析，这样才是所谓的 断之关节 吧？
1.since 1992 far more jobs have been created than have been eliminated
--1population growth，是否所有offer都提供给失业人群了呢？
--2jobs增加了，性质呢？是否能够让失业人员就业。as they are fired due to deficiency in some part (联系delierately)

2.many of those who lost their jobs have found new employment
--1用了多长时间找到？
--2suitable？是否会再被炒、、（这个有点弱哇。。）

3.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
--1. pay的高于平均不等于高于以前，更何况还有2/3低于平均收入的
--2. majority是全职了，那么那些part time的呢？part time 的工作也可能是被全职的人为了养家糊口占了。

综上，尽管有这么个报道，我们还是难以信服hardship 已经消除。除非精确数据 寻找就业时间  工作适合度调查  收入水平等 进一步细化。我们才能相信这一问题已经不存在。

ddcmj519UID: 176326

上课去了。。
晚上回来写。先列个提纲~
（提纲是早上没看66的分析就先列了个~然后再看分析，小有点成就感了~~
嘿嘿，俺的argue第二刀~~磨刀霍霍向猪羊~）

ddcmj519UID: 176326

果然，列提纲这种事情完全米有什么锻炼。。一写就发现俺是个菜鸟嘞。。。天。。得去背几篇好文章了。。俺真菜的不行。。

Organized by points of a report contradicting to a recent article, the passage mainly wants to persuade the editor that the effects of cooperate downsizing is not as desperate as the article exhibited. The editor may receive the idea supported by the three reasons from the report. But before finally drawing the conclusion, something still need further consideration.

First of all, according to the report, job vacancy has been increasing steadily after 1992, by which the author wants to show that chances are high for downsized ones to find new jobs. However, it seems logical that the growth of domestic population should be taken into account. 1992 and later years may just be the period for the children of “baby boomers” went into society. In this way, how many of the jobs created are adopt by downsized ones should be reasonable questioned. What’s more, whether the newly created jobs are suitable for the unemployed is also open to doubt. The unemployed, as is demonstrated, are deliberately selected by corporations, which implies the drawbacks of these people exists to prevent them from getting better jobs before money and years expended to acquire new skills.
(仔细又读了下题，这个好像有点问题。。competent workers。。额。。)

Even if the jobs created are much more than the number of population growth, the assertion of jobs taken by many is still problematic. In this passage, “many” is the key word that the author may forget to define. In what range can we apply “many”? And is it the right one for us to ignore the unemployment? A proof lack of detailed statistics is not convincible as presented. Moreover, it may be something of truth that those employed worker have already wandered in the job fair for years before finally they get their position. Furthermore, following the lines of the passage, except the many of the workers get the offer, the number of the other who do not get employed may thus accumulate to next year’s account. Year after year, there are still numbers of workers, including old faces, showing up in old places, fixing their eyes on kinds of employment ads, hoping their name could be listed under a firm name. Yet, the problem still is not solved.

Only if I forced myself to believe the first two points, the statement about the newly created full-time jobs, mainly in industries with higher pay, can not conquer me. For one thing, the number, two-thirds of the job vacancy, notices me that the at least one-third of the newly created ones, if only offered to the unemployment, can only be taken by after special and even expended training to the workers. For another, the other two-thirds of the mainly full timed jobs only show the tendency to offer higher pay than the average. Will the payment truly above average? Will the payment higher than original one of the workers? Will the payment sufficient enough for them to get rid of the hardship? Will people, who take the minor part time jobs still and still suffer from the hardship, should be forgotten? And, may I question if the jobs are really suitable for them?

To conclude, the author seems logical in reasoning the report to support the idea of the elimination of unemployment as he is to show a bright side of the issue hoping it no longer a problem troubles many. However, before any final conclusions drawn, the author should provide precise statistics to the job offered to and taken by the unemployed workers as well as the years they spend on and the qualification they feel of the newly positions. Only when having these details can we reach the truth in reality.

ddcmj519UID: 176326

俺又改了一遍。有点疑问留着讨论~:loveliness:

Organized by points of a report contradicting to a recent article, the passage mainly wants to persuade the editor that the effects of cooperate downsizing is not as desperate as the article exhibited. The editor may receive the idea supported by the rising job vacancy, many job taking and a higher wage from the report. But before finally draw the conclusion, something still need further consideration.
（发现我也在写这种模板句型了。。）

First of all, according to the report, job vacancy has been increasing steadily after 1992, by which the author wants to show that chances are high for downsized workers to find new jobs. However, it is of great necessity to take the growth of domestic population into account. 1992 and later years are just the period for the children of “baby boomers” went into society. In this way, how many of the jobs created are adopted by downsized ones should be reasonable questioned. What’s more, whether the newly created jobs are suitable for the unemployed is also open to doubt. The unemployed, as is demonstrated, are deliberately selected by corporations, which implies that some drawbacks of these people do exist to prevent them from getting better jobs before money and years expended to acquire new skills.
(仔细又读了下题，这个好像有点问题。。competent workers。。额。。)

Even if the jobs created are much more than the number of population growth（下午看篇关于让步问题的帖。搞得我开始怀疑这样写对不对了。。看俺帖的同学帮俺参谋下？）, the assertion of jobs taken by many is still problematic. In this passage, “many” is the key word that the author may forget to define. In what range can we apply “many”? And is it the right one for us to ignore the unemployment? A proof lack of detailed statistics is not convincible as presented. Moreover, it may be something of truth that those employed worker have already wandered in the job fair for years before finally they get their position. Furthermore, stick to the lines of the passage, except the many of the workers get the offer, the number of the other who do not get employed may thus accumulate to next year’s account. Year after year, there are could still numbers of workers, perhaps even including old faces, showing up in old places, fixing their eyes on kinds of employment ads, hoping their name could be listed under a firm name. Yet, the problem still is not solved.（对于这种废话句的把握。。我还是很没底。。纠结到底是老大所谓的简洁还是我自我感觉的完整。）

Only if I forced myself to believe the first two points,（老大某次讨论提及的让步。。还是不是很适应写了自己都不觉得爽。。） the statement about the newly created full-time jobs, mainly in industries with higher pay, can not conquer me. For one thing, the number, two-thirds of the job vacancy, notices me that at least one-third of the newly created ones, if only offered to the unemployment, perhaps, could only be positioned after special and even expended training that produces bigger hardship to their family. For another, the two-thirds of the mainly full timed jobs only give a tendency to offer higher pay than the average. Will the payment truly above average? Will the payment higher than their old one? Will the payment sufficient enough for them to get rid of the hardship? Will people, who take the minor part-time jobs may still suffer from the hardship, should be forgotten? And, may I question if the jobs are really suitable for them?

To conclude, the author seems logical in reasoning the report to support the idea of the elimination of unemployment as he is to show a bright side of the issue hoping it no longer a problem troubles many. However, before any final conclusions drawn, the author should provide precise statistics to the job offered to and taken by the unemployed workers as well as the years they spend on and the qualification they feel of the newly positions. Only when having these details can we reach the truth in reality.