Arg-72
"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.
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.
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.
In sum, the author has refuted the first articles claims but has not effectively argued the point regarding corporate downsizing and the corollary effects that it has had on employees. To more effectively refute the claim the author should provide clear evidence that most of those job-seekers match the new jobs that have been created since 1992, and that these new positions are suitable for those job-seekers given their work experience, areas of interest, and former salaries.
- The statement above refutes the claims from a certain separate article's argument about... . To justify the disagreement, the speaker cites the following three findings of a recent report: (1) (2) (3) . Upon careful scrutiny, it is clear that the information presented it does little to support the disagreement presented therein.标志性的GRE argument开头段写法，采用C-E-F的结构。先提出原文的conclusion，紧接着给出原文中为了支撑结论引用的证据，最后指出文章存在逻辑错误，从而引出下文。
- Regarding the first finding, the editorial overlooks the possibility that ... .(标志性的GRE argument论证段开头，提出文章存在的因果类错误，并指出文章忽略的其他可能性) Perhaps ... At the same time, perhaps ... .（进一步阐释影响结论的其他可能性，从而反驳原文） In short, what we’re lacking is a clear connection. We cannot determine ,,, .（最后重申原文中的错误）
- 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 ..., then...标志性的GRE argument “论据模糊”类错误攻击模板
本文是非常严谨的开头段-正文段1-正文段2--正文段3-结尾段的五段论逻辑体系。开头段按照C-E-F的逻辑结构，顺利引出后文的分析。论证段中，从提出错误，到分析错误，到给出可能性，最后总结错误，层次清晰，衔接自然。结尾段总结全文，重申错误，给出合理化建议。这样一篇文章从开头到结尾逻辑严谨，内容清晰，圆满的完成了论证的作用。本文三个正文段的开头完整的对应了首段提到的三个Evidence，这样的文章结构上更加紧密，内容上也更加连贯。Regarding the first finding, As for the second finding, The third finding would lend support to the author's argument only in the case that...