[a习作temp] argument220【背水一战3月小组】第二次作业[v2]by yang1989 [复制链接]

yang1989
UID: 2534880

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 6
寄托币: 551
注册时间: 2008-8-21
精华: 0
帖子: 5

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2009-3-5 08:58:44 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

本帖最后由 yang1989 于 2009-3-5 08:59 编辑

thanks zsychbzf

TOPIC: ARGUMENT220 - The 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 23references to watching television and only1 reference to reading fiction. This result suggests that, compared withthe television industry, the publishing and bookselling industries arelikely to decline in profitability. Therefore,people who wish to havecareers as writers should acquire training and experience in writing fortelevision rather than for print media."

提纲：1.非典型调查
2. 错误利润猜测
3.错误建议

n this article, the author contends that were people to be professional writers, they should acquire training and experience in writing for television rather than for print media on the basis of a merely recent study. However sound it appears, the argument is flawed in several aspects as I will demonstrate as follows.

To begin with, the author unfairly assumes that far more people prefer to watch television rather than read books by virtue of an inappropriate survey, concerning only one so-called typical day's conversation. First of all, people in this sample are not adequate enough for a responsible study. How many people are there in that country, state, town or community? It's really possible that 24 peoplerepresent only a near-zero fraction to the total population which would make the results invalid. Secondly, (the author unfairly assumes that fictions could represent all other types of books.) It might be the case that while only 1 people refers to reading fiction, another 100 people report that they would read other forms of books, such as poetry, philosophy collections and so on. Thirdly, data collected in the conversation is not convincing as well. Keen readers probably will talk less about reading during conversation since reading is a private matter and they would prefer sharing happy time with their families, talking about latest news, ball games or else.

Even we assume that less people read books than watch television, we could not safely come to conclusion that the publishing and book-selling industries are to decline in profitability while television industry will enjoy prosperity. In the first place, it's usually not the individual consumers that determine the profitability of publishing and book-selling industries but wholesome sales. Libraries throughout the country will probably pay for book stocks. In the second place, more audiences of television than readers of books do not guarantee profits in television industry. Since the competition in this industry is so severe and the market is full of awkward production of television series, it's very likely staff in television industry are suffering from a painful loss as well. In a word, without providing more evidences, the author could not suggest that television industry earns more money than book-selling industries.

Furthermore, the author also unfairly assumes that everybody who would like to seek a career as a writer would feel all right to be a writer for television scripts. On the one hand, there (are) writers who just want to pursuit his dream as a great author and write what can give society of lasting value instead of (script writings of soap operas which are forgotten by the ordinary very quickly).On the other hand, if a writer is talented enough to write great novels, poetry, etc, it's very likely that he may make a large fortune for him in the field of print media,(whatever the condition of the whole industry). Were he to waste his talent in writing for televisionscripts, he may earn much less than he could have!

(All things considered, I find this suggestion not compelling as it stands. To improve his reasoning,the author is expected to provide more information about the survey while pay particular attention to writer's unique talent. )