Argument Analysis 4

The following appeared as a letter to the editor of a national newspaper.

"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.

My response:

The author of the letter concluded that the newspaper article misrepresented the situation of corporate downsizing in the U.S. The author supports his or her claim by referencing a recent report that was conducted on the U.S. economy. However, the study that the author of the letter used to back her claims are full of flaws and loopholes which weakens the author’s stand on the issue. I shall present the fallacies of the author’s claims as below.

Firstly, the author referenced a report that was conducted over the span of 15 years. (1992 to 2007) Since the study was conducted over such a long period of time, it is unable to give a current depiction of the employment state of the current year. The data of the study was probably averaged over that period of time, and one year’s state of employment could differ greatly from the next. For example, the economic downturn of 2001 could change the employment and downsizing rates drastically but the economic has picked up since then. In order to strengthen her argument, the author should produce a current study that analyzes the economic situation of the current year.

Secondly, the author mentioned that many of those who lost their jobs have found new employment. The author further referenced the above-average wages of the newly created jobs, leading readers to assume that retrenched employees were the ones who took on the newly created positions with offer good wages. This assumption is weak for the author failed to mention the a) the standards of living of the retrenched workers, b) types of employment taken on by retrenched employees or c) the percentage of the retrenched employees that actually managed to land a job in the newly created positions. We cannot assume that the retrenched workers actually benefited from the high wages of the newly created positions. After all, the newly created positions could be filled by retained employees of the company.

Lastly, in order to evaluate the validity of the report, one must also consider the manner the report was conducted. Was the study conducted by an unbiased party?

In sum, the argument presented by the author stands weak. Had the author taken the above factors into consideration, it would have rendered his or her argument irrefutable. As it is, the author came to his or her conclusion by resting his assumptions on a number of inconclusive information.