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."

嘉文博譯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)

參考譯文

美國(guó)各大公司里的許多雇員擔(dān)心，他們會(huì)在不遠(yuǎn)的將來(lái)失去工作。但這一擔(dān)心是沒(méi)有根據(jù)的。依照最近的一項(xiàng)調(diào)查研究，大多數(shù)公司打算在來(lái)年招聘新雇員，而沒(méi)有那么多的公司打算辭退雇員。此外，盡管被辭退是非常令人惱火的，但是專(zhuān)為改進(jìn)找工作技能而設(shè)計(jì)的培訓(xùn)項(xiàng)目和講習(xí)班數(shù)量激增，使失業(yè)給人引起的痛苦遠(yuǎn)少于以前。

在這段論證中，論證者論述道，美國(guó)各大公司里的許多雇員都擔(dān)心他們會(huì)在不遠(yuǎn)的將來(lái)失去工作，但是接著又說(shuō)這一擔(dān)心沒(méi)有理由。作為對(duì)論證的支持，論證者引用了最近的一項(xiàng)調(diào)查研究來(lái)說(shuō)明大多數(shù)公司打算在來(lái)年招收新雇員，而且沒(méi)有那么多的公司打算辭退雇員。論證者還聲稱(chēng)，有了為改進(jìn)找工作技能而設(shè)計(jì)的培訓(xùn)項(xiàng)目和講習(xí)班，失業(yè)已經(jīng)不象以往那么可怕了。這一論證是不能令人信服的，因?yàn)槿幕阱e(cuò)誤的推理。 首先，論證者聲稱(chēng)，美國(guó)主要的公司里許多雇員擔(dān)心會(huì)失去工作，然后引用了一項(xiàng)調(diào)查研究說(shuō)大多數(shù)公司計(jì)劃在新的一年里招聘新職員，而且沒(méi)有那么多的公司打算辭退雇員。但由于沒(méi)有表明調(diào)查是否只涉及美國(guó)主要公司還是涉及所有的公司，這一點(diǎn)會(huì)對(duì)結(jié)果產(chǎn)生不同的解釋。這項(xiàng)調(diào)查也可能不適用于美國(guó)主要公司的雇員，但正是這些的雇員--論證者指出--正在遭受著擔(dān)驚受怕的折磨。由于對(duì)全體公司的研究與該研究對(duì)美國(guó)主要公司雇員的適用性之間可能存在矛盾，故該論證的力度倍受削弱。

進(jìn)而言之，調(diào)查表明大多數(shù)公司計(jì)劃在來(lái)年招聘新雇員，但它并沒(méi)有說(shuō)明將招聘多少人或者在什么職位上招聘新人。很可能這些公司只打算招為數(shù)不多的人，也可能這些新工作崗位只是為新手而設(shè)，而不是為有工作經(jīng)驗(yàn)的人而設(shè)。新聘的職員可以比有工作經(jīng)驗(yàn)的人工資低，而且有時(shí)甚至?xí)〈べY高的雇員。大多數(shù)公司打算在來(lái)年招聘新員工這一事實(shí)，實(shí)際上對(duì)于目前受雇于這些公司的人來(lái)說(shuō)可能是個(gè)不好的征兆，或者至少這與他們是否應(yīng)該擔(dān)心失去工作毫無(wú)關(guān)系。 再者，論證者所引用的調(diào)查研究說(shuō)到，沒(méi)有那么多的公司打算辭退雇員。我們不清楚"沒(méi)有那么多的"公司到底是什么意思--是比去年更少，還是比打算來(lái)年招聘的大多數(shù)少?除了這一含混之處，關(guān)鍵在于這些為數(shù)不多的公司所計(jì)劃解雇的人員數(shù)目。盡管擬解雇員工的公司數(shù)量較少，但失去工作的人員的數(shù)目可能會(huì)很大，尤其當(dāng)它們是美國(guó)的大公司時(shí)。這對(duì)于擔(dān)心不久將會(huì)失去工作的人們來(lái)說(shuō)，很難說(shuō)是一個(gè)令人寬慰的統(tǒng)計(jì)數(shù)字。 最后，論證者提到，為了改進(jìn)找工作技能而設(shè)計(jì)的培訓(xùn)項(xiàng)目和講習(xí)班數(shù)量激增，使失業(yè)不像以往那么糟糕了。這對(duì)于擔(dān)心失去工作的雇員毫不相關(guān)。培訓(xùn)項(xiàng)目與講習(xí)班只是在人們失去工作后才能提供幫助，它根本不能消除對(duì)失去工作的擔(dān)心。再者，培訓(xùn)項(xiàng)目和講習(xí)班并不能付房租。它們可能會(huì)有助于改進(jìn)找工作的技能，但并不能消除對(duì)失去工作的擔(dān)心。

總之，論證者把論證的基礎(chǔ)建立在一個(gè)或許適用也或許不適用于美國(guó)主要公司的雇員的調(diào)查研究上，并犯有一邏輯謬誤，把找工作的培訓(xùn)項(xiàng)目和講習(xí)班與緩解失業(yè)的擔(dān)心混為一談。因而，論證是不能令人信服的，且不是基于前提而展開(kāi)的。