[a习作temp] argument220 [突击先锋小组第12次作业] [复制链接]

dodog
UID：2366039

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 3
寄托币: 380
注册时间: 2007-7-19
精华: 1
帖子: 1

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2007-8-3 17:13:56 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

220The following appeared in an article in a magazine for writers.

"A recent study showed that in describing a typical day's conversation, people make an average of 23 references to watching television and only 1 reference to reading fiction. This result suggests that, compared with the television industry, the publishing and bookselling industries are likely to decline in profitability. Therefore, people who wish to have careers as writers should acquire training and experience in writing for television rather than for print media."

1、人们谈论的比较少，不意味着人们会减少对书的阅读，而使得出版业的利润下降。

2、调查的不科学性，不具代表性。

3、每一个作者都有本身的特点，不能让所有人都去为电视而写作。

In this argument, the arguer suggests the writers to get training and experience in writing for television not print media. To justify his suggestion the arguer cites the results of a study that few people prefer to talk about reading fiction but many are likely to talk about watching television in a typical day's conversation. The arguer assumes that there seems to be a decline in publishing and bookselling industries. However, the recommendation is unconvincing for some critical fallacies.

In the first place, the auger' conclusion that there are likely to be a decline in profitability of the publishing and bookselling industries, is just based on the fact that people more frequently talk about watching television than reading books. But it is not the case. It is known that the television programs contain many fields of our daily lives and are familiar to us. Some TV programs, such as news such as talk shows, telling about some affairs happened close to us, are reliable to be referred to in our daily conversation. Another alternative explanation is that the television programs are concerning some public subjects which can be talk or discuss in a group of people, while the reading seems often a personal affairs which is liable to be enjoyed personally. Without ruling out these possible scenarios, the arguer can not conclude that the profitability of the publishing and bookselling industries appears to decrease.

In the second place, the representative of the study one which the conclusion relies is open to be doubt. On one hand, there are only 24 people involved in the study and the amount of the sample is too small to represent the whole group in society. Perhaps these people are just some ones who would like to watch television rather than read books. On the other hand, the study cited in this argument just mentions fiction which can not stand for the whole publishing and bookselling industries. And there is no information about the situation in other print media. Unless the arguer can provide some concrete evidence to prove that the result of the study is representative, the recommendation can not convince me.

What is more, even if the profitability of print media industry will decline, the arguer fails to reason that the potential writers should to train their ability of writing for television instead of print media. It is known that every writer has his/her own features and advantages; therefore, not all the writers are fit for writing for television. Besides, what can be written for television are quite few. Many programs such as news or talk shows can not be written by the writers, let alone the fiction writers. Also, there are always some books or novels filmized to display on television, by which we can see the values of books again.

To sum up, as it stands, the argument is not very reasoned. To solidify his conclusion, the arguer should provide more concrete evidence to prove that the profitability of print media industry is likely to decline. In addition, the arguer should realize the difference between writing for television programs and that for books.

回应
0

使用道具举报

freepooh
UID：2365587

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 20
寄托币: 346
注册时间: 2007-7-19
精华: 0
帖子: 18

沙发

发表于 2007-8-4 15:59:00 |只看该作者

In this argument, the arguer suggests the writers to get training and experience in writing for television not print media. To justify his suggestion the arguer cites the results of a study that few people prefer to talk about reading fiction but many are likely to talk about watching television in a typical day's conversation. The arguer assumes that there seems to be a decline [in profitability] in publishing and bookselling industries. However, the recommendation is unconvincing for some critical fallacies.

In the first place, the auger' [arguer’s] conclusion that there are likely to be a decline in profitability of the publishing and bookselling industries, is just based on the fact that people more frequently talk about watching television than reading books. But it is not the case. It is known that the television programs contain many fields of our daily lives and are familiar to us. Some TV programs, such as news such as talk shows, telling about some affairs happened close to us, are reliable to be referred to in our daily conversation. Another alternative explanation is that the television programs are concerning some public subjects which can be talk or discuss [talked or discussed] in a group of people, while the reading seems often a personal affairs which is liable to be enjoyed personally. Without ruling out these possible scenarios, the arguer can not conclude that the profitability of the publishing and bookselling industries appears to decrease.

In the second place, the representative of the study one which the conclusion relies [on] is open to be doubt. [感觉这一句有点不顺，第一,one 后面应该能用that而不能用which引导吧。第二，representative of the study one, representative 用of 修饰么？希望楼主能再看一下] On one hand, there are only 24 people involved in the study and the amount of the sample is too small to represent the whole group in society. Perhaps these people are just some ones who would like to watch television rather than read books. On the other hand, the study cited in this argument just mentions fiction which can not stand for the whole publishing and bookselling industries. And there is no information about the situation in other print media. Unless the arguer can provide some concrete evidence to prove that the result of the study is representative, the recommendation can not convince me.

What is more, even if the profitability of print media industry will decline, the arguer fails to reason that the potential writers should to train their ability of writing for television instead of print media. It is known that every writer has his/her own features and advantages; therefore, not all the writers are fit for writing for television. Besides, what can be written for television are [is] quite few. Many programs such as news or talk shows can not be written by the writers, let alone the fiction writers. Also, there are always some books or novels filmized [familiar] to display on television, by which we can see the values of books again.

To sum up, as it stands, the argument is not very reasoned. To solidify his conclusion, the arguer should provide more concrete evidence to prove that the profitability of print media industry is likely to decline. In addition, the arguer should realize the difference between writing for television programs and that for books [in addition 之后的内容是从那个逻辑错误得出的？还请楼主指教] .
[这篇文章，论述清晰，论据合理。主要的逻辑错误基本都找出来了，但是好像有一个profit的问题楼主好像忘了讨论，可能个人主要攻击点不同，]

使用道具举报

dodog
UID：2366039

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 3
寄托币: 380
注册时间: 2007-7-19
精华: 1
帖子: 1

板凳

发表于 2007-8-4 22:56:30 |只看该作者

谢谢freepooh的修改。

那个one应该是on....笔误，狂汗。。。

有关representative，我确实不太清楚它的用法。。。可能是用错了
还有，in addition的总结可能不太完整，因为我第三点提到了，不是所有的人都适合去为电视媒体创作，所以说要注意到不同，可能前面说的不够清晰，使得这里让人也不大明白

还有，因为这道题的论据我的理解是利润的下降，所以，利润分为成本和收入这两点我就没有进行讨论

使用道具举报