心纹凌伊 心纹凌伊
关注数: 44 粉丝数: 32 发帖数: 9,635 关注贴吧数: 16
美国钢铁公司:感谢特朗普,准备投资7.5亿美元 美国钢铁公司宣布,他们将向位于印第安纳州加里市的拥有110年历史的钢铁制造工厂投资7.5亿美元,并称其为特朗普总统对钢铁进口的保护性关税。 由于特朗普对进入美国的所有进口钢材征收25%的关税,旨在保护美国工业和工作不被外包,因此曾经是世界上最大的钢铁厂现在将获得7.5亿美元的改款。 芝加哥论坛报指出,在本周的一份声明中,美国钢铁公司高管表示,他们将重振印第安纳工厂,该工厂雇佣了约3800名美国工人。 虽然美国钢铁公司高管表示他们尚未计划增加印第安纳工厂的就业岗位,但美国钢铁公司总裁兼首席执行官大卫伯里特表示,由于特朗普的关税,该公司正在“经历复兴”。 “我们很高兴能在加里工厂进行这项重大投资,这将改善工厂的环境绩效,提升我们的竞争力,并在未来几年内使当地社区受益,”Burritt在一份声明中说。 “我们正在经历美国钢铁公司的复兴,”伯里特说。 美国钢铁制造业的复兴是在数十年的自由贸易政策之后实现的,这些政策激励美国公司将劳动力外包给外国。 自2001年以来,与中国的自由贸易使数百万美国人失业。据Breitbart News报道,2001年至2015年间,由于该国对华贸易逆差,美国约有340万个就业岗位流失。 在这段时间内失去的340万美国就业岗位中,约有260万人在残缺的制造业中丧失,占美中贸易逆差中失业人数的四分之三。 尽管如此,特朗普的关税已经在六个月内创造了11,100个美国就业岗位。由于关税而创造的美国就业岗位数量是失业人数的20倍。
作文存在这儿 TOPIC:ARGUMENT 153 - The following is from an editorial in the Midvale Observer, a local newspaper. "Ever since the 1950's, when television sets began to appear in the average home, the rate of crimes committed by teenagers in the country of Alta has steadily increased. This increase in teenage crime parallels the increase in violence shown on television. According to several national studies, even very young children who watch a great number of television shows featuring violent scenes display more violent behavior within their home environment than do children who do not watch violent shows. Furthermore, in a survey conducted by the Observer, over 90 percent of the respondents were parents who indicated that prime-time television-programs that are shown between 7 p.m. and 9 p.m.-should show less violence. Therefore, in order to lower the rate of teenage crime in Alta, television viewers should demand that television programmers reduce the amount of violence shown during prime timeIn the argument, by providing some national study and a survey, the author asserts that the television programmers should reduce the amount of violence show during prime time to decrease teenage crime in Alta. In-depth scrutiny upon the evidences reveals that hastiness seriously undermine the credibility of the argument and the author's logic suffers from several fallacies as follows.Primarily, the author fails to distinguish the simultaneity and the causality of the increase of teenage crime and the fact that television was spreading in average home. It is entirely possible that the potential trend of increase of teenage crime has long existed before the spread of television, and the result of increasing teenage crime was a reasonable fact for the trend. And perhaps, the appearance of television was able to avoid some crime by attract the teenager home or educated them with some programs which taught basic knowledge of laws. Therefore, it is quite suspicious and hasty for the author to link two event which had few relationship.What's more, the national studies provided are far from convincing to make me believe that the group of young children who watch violent scenes would indeed display more violent behaviors in the society. As the author only mentions that the very group of children only display more violent behavior within their home environment, I have enough reason to doubt that it is just for their parents' neglect over these violence that gave the children enough courage to display violent behavior within home. Whereas, in the level of society, as for the fear of punishment of laws, these children would not dare to behave violently. Additionally, whether the violence within home would lead to crime is still open to doubt. As the crime caused by violent only makes up a small percentage, and other kind of crime, such as stealing, was not resulting from violence. Thus, the national studies are too weak to better support the author's claim.Further, the survey is not so substantial to support that the increase of teenage crime is caused by violent show on television. It is quite possible that the survey was only offered to the parents who were prone to indicate the decrease of violent show between 7p.m and 9p.m, while these part of parents was, on the contrary, a small group. Thus, the result of the survey would not probably stand for the mind of all parents. To this extent, based on the groundless survey, the assertion of the author is quite suspicious.Finally, even grant the profitability of the reduce of violent show during prime time, whether this legislation would really reduce teenage crime is still unknown. The teenagers who were fond of violent show would still have access to watch violent show in other time, such as in the morning , at noon ,and so forth. And the final result would equal to that before the restriction over violent show during prime time. So the method appealed by the author would be feckless to solve the teenage crime problem.To sum up, based on some groundless evidence, the author's claim is far from convincing. TO better strengthen his assertion, he should make necessary and accurate response to all the doubt I rise above
1 下一页