GRE写作官方题库高频ARGUMENT题目满分范文分享：corporate downsizing in U.S.A.
- 2020年06月10日14:02 来源：小站整理
- 参与（0） 阅读（1504）
"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.
The statement above refutes the claims from a certain separate article's argument about widespread corporate downsizing and the effects that it has had on workers. To justify the disagreement, the speaker cites the following three findings of a recent report: (1) There has been a net increase in the number of new jobs created since 1992, (2) many workers who lost their jobs have found other work, and (3) most newly created jobs are full-time positions in industries which tend to pay above-average wages. Upon careful scrutiny, it is clear that the information presented it does little to support the disagreement presented therein.
本段采用了标准的Argument开头段结构，即：C – E - F的开头结构，首句概括原文的C(Conclusion)。接下来的一句话概括了原文为了支持他的结论所引用的E(Evidence)。最后尾句中给出开头段到正文段的过渡句，指出原文在逻辑上存在F(Flaw)。
Regarding the first finding, the editorial overlooks the possibility that most of the newly created jobs since 1992 are not suitable for those job seekers downsized by corporations. Perhaps the vast majority of these jobs involve food serving, clerical assistance, and maintenance, and other tasks requiring a low level of skill and experience. At the same time, perhaps most downsized job seekers are highly educated middle managers looking for the same type of work elsewhere. In short, what we’re lacking is a clear connection. We cannot determine if the workers referred to in the first article are the same workers that are clearly beneficiaries of job creation mentioned in the second article.
本段作为正文第一段，攻击文章犯的主要逻辑错误：错误因果。作者认为原文忽视了一个可能性，即1992年以来增加的工作岗位未必适合那些公司下岗的员工。进一步，作者详细阐释的这种可能性。可能很多新工作是food serving，clerical assistanc或mantenance这样的低技术工种，下岗的员工可能都是受过高水平教育的中层管理者。作者提出，两种工作缺乏connection，因此，原文结论是不可靠的。
As for the second finding, the term "many" is far too vague to allow for any meaningful conclusions. It may seem like a trifling matter but in an argument one must always have a clear understanding of the definition of terms. If "many" amounts to an insignificant percentage of downsized employees, then the finding is of little use in refuting the original article's claim.
The third finding would lend support to the author's argument only in the case that the following two assumptions could be substantiated: (1) that the newly created jobs in those high-paying industries are suitable for downsized corporate employees, and (2) that the new jobs are among the high-paying ones. Otherwise, downsized employees seeking jobs would be unlikely to regain their former economic status by applying for these newly created positions, whether or not these positions are full-time.