0906G同主题ARGUMENT143 BY SEIRANZCC1

seiranzcc1UID: 2514067

The speaker apparently disagrees with the assertion that corporate downsizing has caused amounts of unemployment which make many competent workers bogged down in serious economic hardship. Though the author's argument is well-presented, it is not thoroughly reasoned to support his points. There are some apparent illogical points in the assertion, and I have at least three reasons to contend with the speaker.

My first contention with the speaker lies in the assertion that newly-created jobs which are far more than the eliminated ones can mitigate the problem of unemployment of competent workers.
Those new positions are offered to the whole population who is hunting for jobs, including fresh graduates and those who master some certain technical skills.
Thus, sometimes the employment cannot even meet the need of
those who come into job market for the first time,
so the increasment of offered positions unlikely can ensure the employment of those who lost their jobs due to corporate downsizing. Moreover, among the newly-created jobs, some certain types of positions which require high-level technical skills or professional scientific knowledge might be contained, and they are just suitable for the specially-trained workers and experts.
In this case, these positions won't make sense in eliminating the unemployment.

The second reason why I disagree with the speaker is about the illogical assumption that finding employment and being paid with above-average wages mean the solution of the problem of unemployment. Firstly, to eliminate economic hardship calls for more than an “employment”, for everyone's life condition is quite different and the money they need varies from one to another. A man having a big family to support obviously needs more than a single one. Secondly, the "above-average" pay does not clearly display the exact level of wages. We can neither know how much an average wage is, nor whether the "above-average" pay can really satisfy all the fundamental needs of people. Thirdly, the rest one third jobs cannot be ignored because the total amount of newly-created jobs is not a small number, thus this group of jobs should be taken into account as they might make a difference in analysis. If they just include those low-level manual work, they won't contribute much to mitigating one's economic hardship.

My third argument is about the speaker’s neglection of the part-time jobs. The assertion just offers the information of full-time jobs, but part-time jobs should be taken into consideration as well. Sometimes part-time jobs tend to be more helpful than the full-time ones. Undertaking several part-time jobs would probably earn more than one full-time employment. So the circumstances of pluralism market is necessary to analyze the issue of unemployment.


In sum, the speaker neglects the new job-hunters coming into job market, who might be great rivals to those unemployed to compete for the limited newly-created jobs. Moreover, the assertion illogically assumes that being employed and having an above-average pay will solve one's economic hardship, ignoring of the specific condition of different people. And, without the circumstances of part-time jobs, we cannot analyze the problem thoroughly. To be more persuasive, the speaker should offer some more specific statistics, such as the number of the newly-increased number of job-hunters and the exact level of average pay.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
有好好找点，但是感觉语言非常冗赘，用词也重复的厉害，某些词真是想不出还有什么别的表达，所以不可避免的有些地方表达不明。总之觉得思考过程还好，但是写作过程痛苦

joyceww88UID: 2599492

The speaker apparently disagrees with the assertion that corporate downsizing has caused amounts of unemployment which make many competent workers bogged down(感觉这个用的好啊) in serious economic hardship. Though the author's argument is well-presented, it is not thoroughly reasoned to support his points. There are some apparent illogical points in the assertion, and I have at least three reasons to contend with the speaker. （感觉这里写的不太好，有点泛泛而谈了，我的意思就是说这句话用在哪篇ARGU里都可以，放之四海而皆准的开头，对这篇没有针对性。如果更有针对性的指出这篇的错误就更好了）

My first contention with the speaker lies in the assertion that newly-created jobs which are far more than the eliminated ones can mitigate the problem of unemployment of competent workers. Those new positions are offered to the whole population who is hunting for jobs, including fresh graduates and those who master some certain technical skills. Thus, sometimes the employment cannot even meet the need of those who come into job market for the first time, so the increasment of offered positions unlikely can ensure the employment of those who lost their jobs due to corporate downsizing. （这句是要说增加的比率的问题么。感觉直接说增加的工作机会可能比增加的找工作的人数少，或者增加工作岗位的比率可能比增加的找工作的人数比率低这样是不是更直接明了一点。额，不知道作者看懂我在说什么没，我的表达能力有点问题）Moreover, among the newly-created jobs, some certain types of positions which require high-level technical skills or professional scientific knowledge might be contained, and they are just suitable for the specially-trained workers and experts. In this case, these positions won't make sense（感觉这个用的也不错） in eliminating the unemployment. （对第一句进行的攻击，个人觉得还是比较充分了的）

The second reason why I disagree with the speaker is about the illogical assumption that finding employment and being paid with above-average wages mean the solution of the problem of unemployment. （直接指出了要攻击的错误的原因，简单明了）Firstly, to eliminate（貌似这个词用得次数确实多了一点） economic hardship calls for more than an “employment”, for everyone's life condition is quite different and the money they need varies from one to another. A man having a big family to support obviously needs more than a single one. Secondly, the "above-average" pay does not clearly display the exact level of wages. We can neither know how much an average wage is,（这里是个什么问题，我没懂。就算知道了how much an average wage is又怎样？攻击这个是为了说明它的什么问题？指出了这一点之后为什么就能说明speaker不能反驳editor的某个观点？当然，也可能是我自己没想过这个问题，所以没想明白） nor whether the "above-average" pay can really satisfy all the fundamental needs of people. （呃，这句可以再展开一点，可以解释解释是怎么不能really satisfy···）Thirdly, the rest one third jobs cannot be ignored because the total amount of newly-created jobs is not a small number, thus this group of jobs should be taken into account as they might make a difference in analysis. If they just include those low-level manual work, they won't contribute much to mitigating one's economic hardship.（第三点大概明白你的意思，但是感觉说的不是很清楚）（这一段好像把后面两句揉在一起写了。个人感觉啊，本来就三句话，是不是分成三段攻击各个击破条理清晰一些。而且揉在一起后，会没有一句一句分析来得仔细，可能会漏掉一些点没说。比如这个找到工作的时效性问题，editor说的是“often for years”而speaker只说找到工作，没说是用了多久找到工作的。或者失业者的竞争力问题啊什么的。而且揉在一起后，每点都没怎么展开，说得不充分）（在一段中又分了三点，条理清晰。只是觉得后面两点说的不是太好，可能跟两句揉在一起有关系吧）

My third argument is about the speaker’s neglection of the part-time jobs. The assertion just offers the information of full-time jobs, but part-time jobs should be taken into consideration as well. Sometimes part-time jobs tend to be more helpful than the full-time ones. Undertaking several part-time jobs would probably earn more than one full-time employment. So the circumstances of pluralism market is necessary to analyze the issue of unemployment. （这点思考得很缜密啊，我一直没想明白那个full-time和part-time对题目有什么影响，所以直接省了没写。原来是这样攻击的呵呵）

In sum, the speaker neglects the new job-hunters coming into job market, who might be great rivals to those unemployed to compete for the limited newly-created jobs. Moreover, the assertion illogically assumes that being employed and having an above-average pay will solve one's economic hardship, ignoring of the specific condition of different people. And, without the circumstances of part-time jobs, we cannot analyze the problem thoroughly. To be more persuasive, the speaker should offer some more specific statistics, such as the number of the newly-increased number of job-hunters and the exact level of average pay. （最后一段提出了修正的方法）（个人觉得啊，最后一段并不是要把前面说的几点再简单复述一遍，像最后一句那样提些意见和建议要好一点）

整体感觉作者的整个行文条理还是很清晰的，整个argu的攻击框架出来了：第一点，第二点，第三点。但是段落没分好，就是指那个二三句揉在一起攻击了，有些进行的不充分。至于词语和句子嘛，我没改额，因为实在是不会改，主要是以我目前水平，我觉得人家能看懂我在说什么就很高兴了，这方面细节我很差。所以作者这篇每句要说什么我基本了解，就顾及不到词汇句型了··
最后，自己写的时候老觉得发现不了攻击的错误点，结果改别人的却特别刻薄，发现自己说了很多不同意见，不要介意啊，都是些个人看法，也可能错的很远，甚至对的改错的···至于绿色的，是觉得用得好的词组什么的，只标了几处是我无意中看到的就标了，后面注意力不在那上面就没标，不代表好后面就没有好词组或者词组少啊，呵呵

seiranzcc1UID: 2514067

谢谢joy的修改！
那段合在一起说是因为我觉得都是一个大方面的问题，不过好像效果的确不好，语言功夫太烂了。。。 2# joyceww88

seiranzcc1UID: 2514067

yyx说的很好啊，学习了。。。
有关part-time的问题，我觉得作为职业市场的重要组成有必要提一下，因为相当多的人在无法找到全职的状况下一般都会找part-time应急。如果part-time供应短缺，是不是间接说明full-time的市场其实很严峻？唉，当时写自己也没多想，现在感觉扯远了。。。鸡肋
3# yyx017

seiranzcc1UID: 2514067

嗯，是这样。。。谢谢哦 6# yyx017