Argument143 【dies in flames 0910G长线突破组】 task by winning1030

winning1030UID: 2538401

143The 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.

Considering that since 1992 far more jobs have been created than have been eliminated and many of those who lost their jobs have found new employment in a recent report and the current situation that two-thirds of the newly created jobs have been in industries which tend to pay above-average wages, and the vast majority of these jobs are full-time, the writer refute the view of the editor that
many competent workers who lost jobs as a result of downsizing face serious economic hardship, often for years, before finding other suitable employment. However, this refutal is unwarranted.

Although the survey which found that since 1992 far more jobs have been created than have been eliminated，the writer doesn’t provide enough evidence that the jobs created supply the demand of the workers who lost jobs as a result of downsizing appropriately. Failing to consider some factors which may significantly influence the situation of employment, such as the demographic change of job hunters, employment pressure and competition and occupations based on supply and demand, the writer can’t draw his hasty conclusion. It’s possible that there are no enough jobs for the workers cut down, given that more people are seeking for at the same time, as means that the workers have to bear more employment pressure and competition than ever with higher chance of unemployment. Even though the jobs supplied is enough, occupations may not match .For example, a majority of the jobs supplied require professional knowledge in business and engineering while most of the workers from other fields, such as
catering industry, medicine, may not equal, with a result that the situation of employment is not optimistic.

In addition, the word “many” in the report to refer to the rate of employment for the workers is too vague to convince me of his conclusion. What is the exact number on earth? Is it 3000, for instance, with total number of 30,000 of unemployment? If so, the writer can’t predict a positive prospect of employment for the proportion is so small that it can’t be generalized. Moreover, I can’t get any information about whether the employees are satisfied with their new jobs now. Maybe they just surrender to the severe competitive institution of employment and lead a hardy life which they have never experienced before. The standards of living far below ever should be also regarded as serious economic hardship. Thus, more information should be given to support the writer’s claim.

Similarly, to strength the writer’s conclusion that 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, the writer commits both of the fallacies I have mentioned above. Again, regardless of occupations based on supply and demand and comparison the standards of living before with those now, the writer’s refutal
is unconvincing .The possibilities that two-thirds of the workers are highly educated elites in society who aren’t suitable for labor can’t be ruled out , let alone the above-average wages to satisfy their qualities of life. Thus, maybe full-time jobs sound tempting; however, they make no sense if they can’t provide appropriate employment opportunities for the workers.

In sum, the writer’ refutal is weak unless he offers more information about the demographic change of job hunters, employment pressure and competition ，occupations based on supply and demand and the gap of standers of living between now and before if the workers take new jobs.




PS:写之前找到到汇总楼，所有没看破题策略，所以写出来貌似有点。。。。

PassonChenUID: 2614331

Considering that since 1992 far more jobs have been created than have been eliminated and many of those who lost their jobs have found new employment in a recent report and the current situation that two-thirds of the newly created jobs have been in industries which tend to pay above-average wages, and the vast majority of these jobs are full-time, the writer refute the view of the editor that
many competent workers who lost jobs as a result of downsizing face serious economic hardship, often for years, before finding other suitable employment. However, this refutal is unwarranted.
(几个AND 复述大意，用得不错。）


Although the survey which found that since 1992 far more jobs have been created than have been eliminated，the writer doesn’t provide enough evidence that the jobs created supply the demand of the workers who lost jobs as a result of downsizing appropriately. Failing to consider some factors which may significantly influence the situation of employment, such as the demographic change of job hunters, employment pressure and competition and occupations based on supply and demand, the writer can’t draw his hasty conclusion. It’s possible that there are no enough jobs for the workers cut down, given that more people are seeking for at the same time, as means that the workers have to bear more employment pressure and competition than ever with higher chance of unemployment. Even though the jobs supplied is enough, occupations may not match .For example, a majority of the jobs supplied require professional knowledge in business and engineering while most of the workers from other fields, such as
catering industry, medicine, may not equal, with a result that the situation of employment is not optimistic.
（我觉得应该先攻其后的那个MANY，因为只有先驳倒这点，才利于驳其失业的情况/，不过，这段写得不错。）
In addition, the word “many” in the report to refer to the rate of employment for the workers is too vague to convince me of his conclusion. What is the exact number on earth? Is it 3000, for instance, with total number of 30,000 of unemployment? If so, the writer can’t predict a positive prospect of employment for the proportion is so small that it can’t be generalized. Moreover, I can’t get any information about whether the employees are satisfied with their new jobs now. Maybe they just surrender to the severe competitive institution of employment and lead a hardy life which they have never experienced before. The standards of living far below ever should be also regarded as serious economic hardship. Thus, more information should be given to support the writer’s claim.

Similarly, to strength the writer’s conclusion that 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, the writer commits both of the fallacies I have mentioned above. Again, regardless of occupations based on supply and demand and comparison the standards of living before with those now, the writer’s refutal
is unconvincing .The possibilities that two-thirds of the workers are highly educated elites in society who aren’t suitable for labor can’t be ruled out , let alone the above-average wages to satisfy their qualities of life. Thus, maybe full-time jobs sound tempting; however, they make no sense if they can’t provide appropriate employment opportunities for the workers.

In sum, the writer’ refutal is weak unless he offers more information about the demographic change of job hunters, employment pressure and competition ，occupations based on supply and demand and the gap of standers of living between now and before if the workers take new jobs.
全文句式地道（敢问是不是背了很多的句型？），连贯。只是我觉得对原文的重复有点多，虽然重复得很好，但我一般是重复不来的。这大概也是一种技术吧。

Alex_2009UID: 2616286

先占楼，马上来改~~
最近杂事太多了，W，不好意思啊~~

Alex_2009UID: 2616286

Considering that since 1992 far more jobs have been created than have been eliminated and many of those who lost their jobs have found new employment in a recent report and the current situation that two-thirds of the newly created jobs have been in industries which tend to pay above-average wages, and the vast majority of these jobs are full-time, the writer refute the view of the editor that many competent workers who lost jobs as a result of downsizing face serious economic hardship, often for years, before finding other suitable employment. However, this refutal is unwarranted.(第一段子这样写一点问题没有，但我一直在考虑一个问题，就是这样搬一下的用处多大，有没有更好的开头方法。。。）

Although the survey which found that since 1992 far more jobs have been created than have been eliminated，the writer doesn’t provide enough evidence that the jobs created supply the demand（比need高一级） of the workers who lost jobs as a result of downsizing appropriately. Failing to consider some factors which may significantly influence the situation of employment, such as the demographic change of job hunters, employment pressure and competition and occupations based on supply and demand, the writer can’t draw his hasty conclusion. It’s possible that there are no enough jobs for the workers cut down, given that more people are seeking for at the same time, as means that the workers have to bear more employment pressure and competition than ever with higher chance of unemployment. Even though the jobs supplied is enough, occupations（比job高一级） may not match .For example, a majority of the jobs supplied require professional knowledge in business and engineering while most of the workers from other fields, such as
catering industry, medicine, may not equal, with a result that the situation of employment is not optimistic.（这个例子develop的不错）

In addition, the word “many” in the report to refer to the rate of employment for the workers is too vague to convince me of his conclusion. What is the exact number on earth? Is it 3000, for instance, with total number of 30,000 of unemployment? If so, the writer can’t predict a positive prospect of employment for the proportion is so small that it can’t be generalized. Moreover, I can’t get any information about whether the employees are satisfied with their new jobs now. Maybe they just surrender to the severe competitive institution of employment and lead a hardy life which they have never experienced before. The standards of living far below ever should be also regarded as serious economic hardship. Thus, more information should be given to support the writer’s claim.

Similarly,（这个连接词不错，引起相关的下文）to strength the writer’s conclusion that 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, the writer commits both of the fallacies I have mentioned above. Again, regardless of occupations based on supply and demand and comparison the standards of living before with those now, the writer’s refutal is unconvincing .The possibilities that two-thirds of the workers are highly educated elites in society who aren’t suitable for labor can’t be ruled out , let alone the above-average wages to satisfy their qualities of life. Thus, maybe full-time jobs sound tempting; however, they make no sense if they can’t provide appropriate employment opportunities for the workers.

In sum, the writer’ refutal is weak unless he offers more information about the demographic change of job hunters, employment pressure and competition ，occupations based on supply and demand and the gap of standers of living between now and before if the workers take new jobs.

红色表示有问题的
蓝色表示不错的
绿色表示值得思考的

点评：1、逻辑词的恰当运用体现出作者良好的逻辑性；
        2、用词方面高出一般词汇一级，值得学习；

不知作者准备作文有多长时间，这篇文章写的不错。可以的话作者能否在下楼写点经验分享一下。

winning1030UID: 2538401

4# Alex_2009
童鞋太夸奖了。。。我到没看出来啥高级词，不过听你这么说，好像occupation比job好，不过也是从灵格斯上扣下来的。。。每次写就是离不了词典
我没有看过模板，连北美的文章都没看过。。。听到斑斑很批模板，所以就尽量自己写，不要写太多套话。我觉得找连词很重要，其实发现没，我的连词总是那么几个，thus都用2遍了。。。
偶也是新手，总觉得还没开始准备作文就被斑斑拖上来直接写了。。。推荐多看AW精华帖，我虽然看的比较少（没什么时间，再者我上网就去玩了。。。），但是觉得很受启发。