GRE作文范文 Argument-25

"Many employees of major United States corporations are fearful that they will lose their jobs in the near future, but this fear is largely unfounded. According to a recent study, a majority of companies expected to make new hires in the coming year, while fewer companies expected to lay off employees. In addition, although it is very disturbing to be laid off, the proliferation of programs and of workshops designed to improve job-finding skills has made being laid off far less painful than it once was."

嘉文博译Sample Essay

In this argument, the arguer states that many employees of major United States corporations are afraid of losing their jobs in the near future, but further states that there is no reason for this fear. As support for the argument, the arguer cites a recent study indicating that a majority of companies expect to make new hires in the coming year and that fewer companies expected to lay off employees. The arguer also states that because of programs and workshops designed to improve job-finding skills, being laid off is not as bad as it used to be. This argument is unconvincing because it is based on problematic reasoning.

In the first place, the arguer claims that many employees of major U.S. companies are afraid of losing their jobs, then cites a study that talks about a majority of companies planning to hire in the coming year while fewer companies are planning to lay people off. There is no indication of whether the study only addressed major U.S. companies or all companies in general, which could have skewed the results. The study may not be applicable to employees of major U.S. companies, which are the ones that are worried, according to the arguer. The argument is weakened by the possible discrepancy between the study of companies in general and its applicability to employees of major U.S. companies.

Furthermore, the study shows that a majority of companies are planning new hires in the coming year, but it does not state how many people will be hired or for what positions. It is possible that these companies are planning to hire only a very few people, and it is likely that these new hires will be for entry level positions rather than positions for people with work experience. New hires at the entry level position can be paid less than people with work experience and sometimes can even replace higher paid employees. The fact that a majority of companies are planning to hire new people in the coming year may actually be a bad omen for people who are currently employed with such companies, or at the very least, it has nothing to do with whether they should worry about losing their jobs.

Additionally, the study cited by the arguer says that fewer companies are expecting to lay off employees. It is not clear what is meant by "fewer" companies - fewer than last year or fewer than the majority that plan on hiring new people in the coming year? Besides this ambiguity, the significance depends on the total number of people that these fewer companies plan to lay off. Although the number of companies laying people off may be lower, the number of employees that lose their jobs could be tremendous, particularly if they are major U.S. companies. This is hardly a comforting statistic to employees who are worried about losing their jobs in the near future.

Finally, the arguer states that the proliferation of programs and workshops designed to improve job-finding skills has made being laid off not as bad as it once was. This is irrelevant to an employee who fears losing his or her job. Programs and workshops can only help after the person has lost his or her job - it can't take away the fear of losing the job in the first place. Furthermore, programs and workshops don't pay the rent. They may help to improve the skills of finding a job, but they cannot take away the fear of losing a job.

In summary, the arguer bases the argument on a study that may or may not be applicable to employees of major U.S. companies and commits the fallacy of confusing job-finding workshops and programs with alleviating the fear of losing a job in the first place. The argument is therefore unconvincing and fails to deliver on its premise.

(646 words)

参考译文

美国各大公司里的许多雇员担心，他们会在不远的将来失去工作。但这一担心是没有根据的。依照最近的一项调查研究，大多数公司打算在来年招聘新雇员，而没有那么多的公司打算辞退雇员。此外，尽管被辞退是非常令人恼火的，但是专为改进找工作技能而设计的培训项目和讲习班数量激增，使失业给人引起的痛苦远少于以前。

在这段论证中，论证者论述道，美国各大公司里的许多雇员都担心他们会在不远的将来失去工作，但是接着又说这一担心没有理由。作为对论证的支持，论证者引用了最近的一项调查研究来说明大多数公司打算在来年招收新雇员，而且没有那么多的公司打算辞退雇员。论证者还声称，有了为改进找工作技能而设计的培训项目和讲习班，失业已经不象以往那么可怕了。这一论证是不能令人信服的，因为全文基于错误的推理。 首先，论证者声称，美国主要的公司里许多雇员担心会失去工作，然后引用了一项调查研究说大多数公司计划在新的一年里招聘新职员，而且没有那么多的公司打算辞退雇员。但由于没有表明调查是否只涉及美国主要公司还是涉及所有的公司，这一点会对结果产生不同的解释。这项调查也可能不适用于美国主要公司的雇员，但正是这些的雇员--论证者指出--正在遭受着担惊受怕的折磨。由于对全体公司的研究与该研究对美国主要公司雇员的适用性之间可能存在矛盾，故该论证的力度倍受削弱。

进而言之，调查表明大多数公司计划在来年招聘新雇员，但它并没有说明将招聘多少人或者在什么职位上招聘新人。很可能这些公司只打算招为数不多的人，也可能这些新工作岗位只是为新手而设，而不是为有工作经验的人而设。新聘的职员可以比有工作经验的人工资低，而且有时甚至会取代工资高的雇员。大多数公司打算在来年招聘新员工这一事实，实际上对于目前受雇于这些公司的人来说可能是个不好的征兆，或者至少这与他们是否应该担心失去工作毫无关系。 再者，论证者所引用的调查研究说到，没有那么多的公司打算辞退雇员。我们不清楚"没有那么多的"公司到底是什么意思--是比去年更少，还是比打算来年招聘的大多数少?除了这一含混之处，关键在于这些为数不多的公司所计划解雇的人员数目。尽管拟解雇员工的公司数量较少，但失去工作的人员的数目可能会很大，尤其当它们是美国的大公司时。这对于担心不久将会失去工作的人们来说，很难说是一个令人宽慰的统计数字。 最后，论证者提到，为了改进找工作技能而设计的培训项目和讲习班数量激增，使失业不像以往那么糟糕了。这对于担心失去工作的雇员毫不相关。培训项目与讲习班只是在人们失去工作后才能提供帮助，它根本不能消除对失去工作的担心。再者，培训项目和讲习班并不能付房租。它们可能会有助于改进找工作的技能，但并不能消除对失去工作的担心。

总之，论证者把论证的基础建立在一个或许适用也或许不适用于美国主要公司的雇员的调查研究上，并犯有一逻辑谬误，把找工作的培训项目和讲习班与缓解失业的担心混为一谈。因而，论证是不能令人信服的，且不是基于前提而展开的。