0906G同主题ARGUMENT143 by joyceww88

joyceww88UID: 2599492

The arguer claims that the editor's recent article on corporate downsizing in the US is misleading by citing a recent report on the US economy. To substantiate his view the arguer strenghten three points of the report, which seems to contradict the editor's view. Those points, however, can't be used to deduce the conclusion. Actually, it has not direct relation between them.


First of all, the arguer refutes the editor's impression basing on the fact that far more jobs have been created than have been eliminated. But he overlooks the proportion of increasing number of population or people who seek work and the number of jobs supplied. If there are more people hunting for jobs than jobs have been created, many more will face unemployment, which is even worse than the editor's describing.


Moreover, that many of those who lost their jobs have found new employment doesn't necessarily means they find jobs in a short time. Maybe they look for jobs spending a few years. Even if I concede that they find new jobs very soon, which, perhaps, not suitable for them. They are just pushed to get a job of a sort to live, nevertheless, it's possible that the salary is so low that they still confront serious economic hardship. Granted that jobs are suitable and well-paid, it only solves plight of people who have got jobs. Many people finding jobs doesn't stand for all. The problem remains on some other competent workers referred by the editor.


Finally, though newly created jobs tend to pay above-average, they maybe not suitable for laid-off workers even if they have competence. Perhaps most of them engage in other industries other than those well-paid jobs. So they can't benefit from such jobs any more. Another possibility is that those jobs may limit the age, gender, or skill of their practitioners.In addition, above-average wages surely attract more people to apply to, which makes those business become more hotly. These jobs are not exclusive for those unemployed. Although some laid-off workers are competent, we have reasons to believe that they are not excellent enough to compete with those incumbents. After all, they are losers to compete with those incumbents. What's more, admittedly that they have the same capability, no one can make sure that employers will not discriminate them to think they lost jobs because of incompetence.


To sum up, the evidence afforded by the arguer fail to convince me to consider the editor's article on corporate downsizing in the US as a misleading. It is better for the arguer to provide some proof to certify those competent workers get new suitable jobs soon which seems more persuasive. Or more statistics offerde about that how many competent workers who lose jobs have found suitable employment and what's the level of their salary now are needed.




这次什么模板也没用，全自己诌的，所以语言就····呃，反正就是很寒
感觉自己完全没分析进去，都觉得无话可说了这篇
还有就是动作太慢····

seiranzcc1UID: 2514067

The arguer claims that the editor's recent article on corporate downsizing in the US is misleading by citing a recent report on the US economy. To substantiate his view the arguer strenghten three points of the report, which seems to contradict the editor's view. Those points, however, can't be used to deduce the conclusion. Actually, it has not direct relation between them.点出了作者总体上的问题，比较直接


First of all, the arguer refutes the editor's impression basing on the fact that far more jobs have been created than have been eliminated. But he overlooks the proportion of increasing number of population or people who seek work and the number of jobs supplied. If there are more people hunting for jobs than jobs have been created,（这句话结构稍微有点不顺畅） many more will face unemployment, which is even worse than the editor's describing.没什么问题，就觉得这段稍微有点短，内容再充实点应该会更好，其实人口问题也可以发散出一些东西来，比如竞争加剧之类的


Moreover, that many of those who lost their jobs have found new employment doesn't necessarily means they find jobs in a short time. Maybe they look for jobs spending a few years.我一直在想时间的攻击点是不是要说“长时间的失业状态是的eco hardship无法解决”？如果是这样，那么我觉得作者可以阐述得更清楚一些
Even if I concede that they find new jobs very soon, which, perhaps, not suitable for them. They are just pushed to get a job of a sort to live, nevertheless, it's possible that the salary is so low that they still confront serious economic hardship. Granted that jobs are suitable and well-paid, it only solves plight of people who have got jobs. Many people finding jobs doesn't stand for all. The problem remains on some other competent workers referred by the editor.


Finally, though newly created jobs tend to pay above-average, they maybe（may be） not suitable for laid-off workers even if they have competence. Perhaps most of them engage in other industries other than those well-paid jobs. So they can't benefit from such jobs any more.(很好的点，很同意) Another possibility is that those jobs may limit the age, gender, or skill of their practitioners.In addition, above-average wages surely attract more people to apply to, which makes those business become more hotly. These jobs are not exclusive for those unemployed. Although some laid-off workers are competent, we have reasons to believe that they are not excellent enough to compete with those incumbents. After all, they are losers to compete with those incumbents. What's more, admittedly that they have the same capability, no one can make sure that employers will not discriminate them to think they lost jobs because of incompetence.我觉得很有道理，说的点都很好


To sum up, the evidence afforded by the arguer fail to convince me （感觉好事尽量不用第一人称）to consider the editor's article on corporate downsizing in the US as a misleading. It is better for the arguer to provide some proof to certify those competent workers get new suitable jobs soon which seems more persuasive. Or more statistics offerde about that how many competent workers who lose jobs have found suitable employment and what's the level of their salary now are needed.
我觉得写得很好啊，个别语句表达稍微不太顺，但是我觉得攻击点都很好！学习了~