"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

In this argument the author concludes that a recent article about corporate downsizing is not precise in the statement that many competent workers who lost jobs as a result of downsizing face long serious economic problems to find new job. To justify this conclusion, he cites that based on an economic report since 1992 far more jobs have been created than have been eliminated and many of people who lost their jobs have found new employment. He also points out that Two-thirds of the newly created jobs have been in industries that tend to pay above-average wages, and a large number of these jobs are full-time. A careful examination of this evidence reveals that it lends little credence to this argument for several respects.

First, the author unfairly assumes that statements of the report are correct. He fails to provide substantial evidence to prove the report’s claims and therefore this report would not be an authentic resource to renounce the declaration of the article based on.

Second, even if the claims in the report are substantially credited it can not be concluded that creation of far more jobs than the eliminated jobs guarantees a great number of employment among workers who have loosed their jobs. The new jobs might consider the prior performance of the employees and impute their previous failure and loosing job to their incompetence and inability. Or these new jobs might not be well-paid or even might have unsatisfactory situations and features that do not absorb the workers. And without considering and ruling out this and other possibilities the author can not reasonably conclude that the more provided job contribute to more employment of fired workers.

Third, the claim that Two-thirds of the newly created jobs have been in industries that tend to pay above-average wages is not a convincing reason that lead to more employment. Since, there is the possibility that these jobs address just a limited number of employees who are specialized in specific occupations which are always offered with higher salaries. And also like the reason mentioned in the previous paragraph they are not desirable or even durable works due to their adverse situations. And without dear evidence demonstrating that a considerable amount of these jobs are offered for all the working levels and provide satisfactory situations, this claim cannot be easily concluded.

In sum, the author fails to convince me that the article is mistaken in claiming that fired employees are encountering hard economic difficulties. To bolster this argument the author must provide clear evidence that support the claims of the report and account for all the features and conditions of the new offered jobs. To better assess the strength of the argument I need more information to figure out whether the new jobs are economically and spiritually satisfactory like the previous ones and whether they are offered for all kinds of workers.