lgi

Issue Essay Critical judgment of work in any given field has little value unless it comes from someone who is an expert in that field. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position. Experts spend time and effort studying a certain field to gain expertise, and to be able to understand a range of works that come out of their chosen field. The more familiar an expert is with the issues and specifics of their field, the better they can assess other works within their field of expertise. Due to their deep understanding of the details and nuances of a field, an expert is much better suited to give critical judgement on work in that field than someone not as familiar with that field. Someone who is considered an expert in their field has presumably spent a large amount of time learning about the details and nuances of their chosen field. Therefore, they have a deeper understanding of topics related to their field than someone who has not devoted as much of their time to expertise in that same field. In critiquing a work borne out of their chosen field, an expert has valuable experience to draw from in offering criticism or support of the work. Jane Goodall, a celebrated scientist of primate anthropology, would offer highly valued critical judgment on a paper by another scientist that examines the eating habits of a group of chimpanzees. In contrast, Stephen Hawking, while also a celebrated scientist, would not be able to offer the same level of judgment on that paper, as it is outside his area of expertise. Experts know the details and nuances of their work better than someone not in that specific field, and so they are better equipped than anyone to critique work in their own field. If someone is not an expert in a field yet is offering critical judgment on a work from that field, they likely would not be able to understand certain specifics of issues the work introduces. Therefore, their criticism may be misguided, or may focus on unimportant parts of the work. This kind of critique is not valuable, as it does not get at the root of what the work is based on. However, it could be said that someone who is not an expert in that field could give a valuable outside perspective on a piece of work since they are able to see the big picture. Although in some cases this outside perspective could be valuable, in general, it is still more valuable to have another expert’s opinion on a work in their own field. Due to a deep understanding of a field, an expert’s critical judgment on a work in that field is ultimately more insightful and valuable than someone outside this field. Argument Essay The following appeared as a letter to the editor of a national newspaper. "Your recent article on corporate downsizing* in Elthyria maintains that the majority of competent workers who have lost jobs as a result of downsizing face serious economic hardship, often for years, before finding other suitable employment. But this claim is undermined by a recent report on the Elthyrian economy, which found that since 1999 far more jobs have been created than have been eliminated, bringing the unemployment rate in Elthyria to its lowest level in decades. Moreover, two-thirds of these 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 whereby corporations deliberately make themselves smaller, reducing the number of their employees. Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument. This argument is flawed, mainly because it makes no connection between the ability of the majority of competent workers who have lost jobs as a result of downsizing to get these newly created jobs in Elthyria. Just because more jobs have been created than have been eliminated since 1999, does not mean that those workers who have lost jobs as a result of corporate downsizing will necessarily get these created jobs. The fact that more jobs have been created than have been eliminated does not affect the claim that the majority of victims of corporate downsizing face serious economic hardship before finding other suitable employment. The fact that two-thirds of these newly created jobs are in industries that tend to pay above-average wages and are full-time, also does not mean that those who have lost jobs as a result of downsizing will get these new jobs and consequently will not suffer economic hardship. There is no evidence that the victims of corporate downsizing have the skills necessary to obtain a job in the industries that tend to pay above-average wages and are full-time. Therefore, there is no guarantee that these high paying full-time jobs are accessible to workers looking for new jobs as a result of downsizing. In addition, the other third of these new jobs could be low-paying or part-time jobs, that would not be able to support workers that have lost their jobs as a result of corporate downsizing. Therefore, this fact provides no evidence to suggest that these workers will not face serious economic hardship. Further, the recent report on the Elthyrian economy does not necessarily undermine the article on corporate downsizing, because the findings of the report as detailed in the letter do not disprove the article’s claim. The fact that the unemployment rate in Elthyria is the lowest its been in decades, does not dictate the employment rate of workers who have lost their jobs due to downsizing. In order to strengthen this argument, evidence in the Elthyrian economy report needs to be brought forth providing that the majority of victims of downsizing in Elthyria are eligible for and able to secure these newly created jobs that pay above-average wages and are full-time.