Argument143【dies in flames 0910G长线突破组】 task by 米饭袜子

米饭袜子UID: 2532172

This seemingly logical letter argued against a recent aticle on corporated downsizing in the U.S. of a national newspaper, but I can hardly find the author’s view reasonable.

First of all, I suppose it is the arguer not the editor who “gives the mistaken impression”, In order to throw light on this point of view, it is necessary for us to have a look at the contents of that article again in which the editor pointed out that “many competent workers who lost jobs as a result of downsizing faces serious economic hardship , often for years, before finding other suitable employment”. We should define our terms of “downsizing” initially. As the note at the bottom of the letter states, downsizing is the process in which corporation deliberately reduce the number of their employees. Naturally, the word “deliberatly” draw my attention and with the words “competent workers” followed it has indicated clearly that the unemployment discussed in the article is an abnormal one , that is, though many wokers are adequated to take positions in corperations they are still fired for some artificial scarcities,for instance, some of them may have conflicts with leaders once or some of them perhaps have presented the opposite opinions against administors. However, the author’s argument is based on a universal social phenomenon about unemployment, causes of which can be from all sides including a worker’s being not fit for the job any longer, the reformation of corperations and even a nation wide recession ect. Accordingly, it’s safe to say that the letter above is weak ,firstly for the author’s misunderstanding about the definition of unemployment mentioned in the editor’s article and I supppose it an enssential flaw.

What’s more, even if we take the author’s understanding of the problem into account, I’ll still not be convinced by his or her evidence on grounds of some one-sided consideration as follows.

To start with, the situation that “far more jobs have been created than have been eliminated” shouldn’t be regarded as one of the eliments contributing to reducing the amount of people facing economic hardship as a result of being out of work, for the author failed to think over the rise in population alongside during the period of time. Moreover, there’s another key word “suitable” in the national newspaper’s article. So I wonder if the jobs are suitable for those who are employed again in the statement of the arguer, and chances that a unsuitable employment is unable to provide the employee with the same-level incomes,as his or her anterior job are great, thus leading to the economic hardship equally. Neverhtless, how can we infer those above-average-wages jobs in industies are newly created for the laid-off workers? Wouldn’t it be more difficult in economy for some workers if vast majority of these jobs are full-time since opportunities that they take a part-time job aiming at extra earning are narrow? If so, obviously,the author couldn’t support his or her conclusion fully.

All in all, considering some of the insufficient provements above as well as the distingction in defining the unemployment between the newpaper’s article and the arguer’s citation from the U.S. economy, I won’t be in favour of the letter.

sakuraanneUID: 2253519

占楼欣赏米饭的argu

sakuraanneUID: 2253519

形式有点怪。aw无论如何还是带着镣铐跳舞，追求自由行文但自由度有一定范围
段落长度和内容要平衡一下

米饭袜子UID: 2532172

形式有点怪。aw无论如何还是带着镣铐跳舞，追求自由行文但自由度有一定范围
段落长度和内容要平衡一下
sakuraanne 发表于 2009-3-22 16:04

TT，传上来的时候不这个这个格式哇~

多谢提点捏~当时写的时候考虑到段长的问题，但觉得实在分不出来了哇~
再给指点下嘛~
一鞠躬~二鞠躬~三鞠躬~！！！

PassonChenUID: 2614331

Argument 143【dies in flames 0910G长线突破组】 task by 米饭袜子
This seemingly logical letter argued against a recent aticle on corporated downsizing in the U.S. of a national newspaper, but I can hardly find the author’s view reasonable.

First of all, I suppose it is the arguer not the editor who “gives the mistaken impression”, In order to throw light on this point of view, it is necessary for us to have a look at the contents of that article again in which the editor pointed out that “many competent workers who lost jobs as a result of downsizing faces serious economic hardship , often for years, before finding other suitable employment”. （太啰嗦）We should define our terms of “downsizing” initially. As the note at the bottom of the letter states, downsizing is the process in which corporation deliberately reduce the number of their employees. Naturally, the word “deliberatly” draw my attention and with the words “competent workers” followed it has indicated clearly that the unemployment discussed in the article is an abnormal one , that is, though many wokers are adequated to take positions in corperations they are still fired for some artificial scarcities,for instance, some of them may have conflicts with leaders once or some of them perhaps have presented the opposite opinions against administors. However, the author’s argument is based on a universal social phenomenon about unemployment, causes of which can be from all sides including a worker’s being not fit for the job any longer, the reformation of corperations and even a nation wide recession ect. Accordingly, it’s safe to say that the letter above is weak ,firstly for the author’s misunderstanding about the definition of unemployment mentioned in the editor’s article and I supppose it an enssential flaw.
（请问公司真的会无缘无故裁员吗？与上司的不和导致的裁员真的就那么普遍吗？公司是有社会责任的。）
What’s more, even if we take the author’s understanding of the problem into account, I’ll still not be convinced by his or her evidence on grounds of some one-sided consideration as follows.

To start with, the situation that “far more jobs have been created than have been eliminated” shouldn’t be regarded as one of the eliments contributing to reducing the amount of people facing economic hardship as a result of being out of work, for the author failed to think over the rise in population alongside during the period of time. Moreover, there’s another key word “suitable” in the national newspaper’s article. So I wonder if the jobs are suitable for those who are employed again in the statement of the arguer, and chances that a unsuitable employment is unable to provide the employee with the same-level incomes,as his or her anterior job are great, thus leading to the economic hardship equally（没有工作时再贱的工作也是让人满意的）. Neverhtless, how can we infer those above-average-wages jobs in industies are newly created for the laid-off workers? Wouldn’t it be more difficult in economy for some workers if vast majority of these jobs are full-time since opportunities that they take a part-time job aiming at extra earning are narrow? （有了高薪的全时工作还要什么兼职？）If so, obviously,the author couldn’t support his or her conclusion fully.

All in all, considering some of the insufficient provements above as well as the distingction in defining the unemployment between the newpaper’s article and the arguer’s citation from the U.S. economy, I won’t be in favour of the letter.
我觉得你的文风太啰嗦。500多的字只有三百字的内容。空话、套话太多，用词不精练。连词的使用不是很好，句子功底不强。建议多使用多重复合句，可以是“蜻蜓点水式”，也可以是“树式”，还可以是“竹节式”。

米饭袜子UID: 2532172

嗯嗯，LS的义务修改批的好~
句子和词汇是我的软肋！！

sakuraanneUID: 2253519

This seemingly logical letter argued against a recent aticle(article发上来之前自己改一改，想一想怎样开头，段中布局和结尾，让文章充实) on corporated downsizing in the U.S. of a national newspaper, but I can hardly find the author’s view reasonable.这个开头有点单薄

First of all, I suppose it is the arguer not the editor who “gives the mistaken impression”, In order to throw light on this point of view, it is necessary for us to have a look at the contents of that article again in which the editor pointed out that “many competent workers who lost jobs as a result of downsizing faces serious economic hardship , often for years, before finding other suitable employment”. （太啰嗦）楼上同学说的挺好，这种定义不必要，好的行文应该简洁明了的指出错误。We should define our terms of “downsizing” initially. As the note at the bottom of the letter states, downsizing is the process in which corporation deliberately reduce the number of their employees. Naturally, the word “deliberatly” draw my attention and with the words “competent workers” followed it has indicated clearly that the unemployment discussed in the article is an abnormal one , that is, though many wokers workers？are adequated to take positions in corperations they are still fired for some artificial scarcities,for instance, some of them may have conflicts with leaders once or some of them perhaps have presented the opposite opinions against administors.反例缺乏普适性，有点牵强 However, the author’s argument is based on a universal social phenomenon about unemployment, causes of which can be from all sides including a worker’s being not fit for the job any longer, the reformation of corperations and even a nation wide recession ect. Accordingly, it’s safe to say that the letter above is weak ,firstly for the author’s misunderstanding about the definition of unemployment mentioned in the editor’s article and I supppose it an enssential flaw.

What’s more, even if we take the author’s understanding of the problem into account, I’ll still not be convinced by his or her evidence on grounds of some one-sided consideration as follows.我说的格式问题是布局不合理，这段太少，上面的篇幅太长，上段内容要精简

To start with, 复述文章内容要自己概括，不要引用，仔细看看范文the situation that “far more jobs have been created than have been eliminated” shouldn’t be regarded as one of the eliments contributing to reducing the amount of people facing economic hardship as a result of being out of work, for the author failed to think over the rise in population alongside during the period of time. Moreover, there’s another key word “suitable” in the national newspaper’s article. So I wonderI在argu里出现不合适，不客观 if the jobs are suitable for those who are employed again in the statement of the arguer, and chances that a unsuitable employment is unable to provide the employee with the same-level incomes,as his or her anterior job are great, thus leading to the economic hardship equally. Neverhtless, how can we infer those above-average-wages jobs in industies are newly created for the laid-off workers? Wouldn’t it be more difficult in economy for some workers if vast majority of these jobs are full-time since opportunities that they take a part-time job aiming at extra earning are narrow? If so, obviously,the author couldn’t support his or her conclusion fully.

All in all, considering some of the insufficient provements above as well as the distingction distinction？ in defining the unemployment between the newpaper’s article and the arguer’s citation from the U.S. economy, I won’t be in favour of the letter.结尾太单薄，布局和批驳点展开上建议多参考精华区imong等的范文点评，逻辑是自己培养的，谁也帮不了

很抱歉拖了两天才改，米饭以后不要口气太客气了，大家都是平等的

米饭袜子UID: 2532172

7# sakuraanne
O(∩_∩)O谢谢JJ哇~
偶要加油哇~

sakuraanneUID: 2253519

现在能写成这样也很不错，10g还是很有希望的。加油！