[a习作temp] Argument220 [Victors小组]第十五次作业 [复制链接]

乳虎
UID：2251211

中级会员

Rank: 4

声望: 16
寄托币: 645
注册时间: 2006-9-10
精华: 0
帖子: 40

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2007-7-24 18:11:46 |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."

提纲:
1调查本身可能不可靠。
2人们提到看电视和读书的次数不能说明他们看电视和看书的数量。
3及时看电视的人确实多也不能说明电视产业将比印刷品产业赚钱。
4作者忽略了不同的作家有不同的特长。

In this argument, the arguer cites a study showing that people make an average of 23 references to watching television and only 1 reference to reading fiction. On that basis the arguer reasons that the publishing and bookselling industries are likely become less lucrative. The the arguer recommends that people wishing to have careers as writers should prepare for write for television instead for print media. In my opinion, the argument involves some logical flaws which render it not tenable.

In the first place, a convincing study should be statistically reliable. Unfortunately, we find no in formation about the sample size and the procedure for random sample in the argument. that force us to ask whether the sample size of the study is large enough. Maybe there are too few people enrolled in the study, in that case, the sample is not representative to the population. Unless the arguer provides evidence to prove the study statistically reliable, he or she can not rely on the statistics to make some sound recommendation.

In the second place, even if the study is statistically reliable, the arguer falsely assume that people is less interested in reading than in watching television. In fact reference can not indicate the amount people watch television and read book. It is entirely possible that some people read more books but they would not like to tell them, especially as for poem, prose which involve rich subtext. On the contrary, people like telling television programs because they are vivid. Due to the arguer’s fail to take account into such key point, he or she can not convince me.

In the third place, assuming the study accurately reveals the preference of consumers, it is little indication that the profitability of publishing and bookselling industries will decline compared with television industries. In fact, the profitability of a industry is the function of many factors, such as price, cost etc. Commonsense informs that the cost of play series is higher than print media. If the higher cost offset the higher demand, the profitability of television industry will be lower rather than higher than print media.

Last but not the least, the recommendation relies on a false assumption that all writers will do well in composing for television. Actually, the works for television and those for print media have diverse traits, while specific writers has gift in composing different types of works. Some writers do well in composing for television while other writers are good at composing for print media. the arguer ignores such key point, so he or she is doomed to fail to make some sound recommendation.

In conclusion, the arguer commit a series of logical flaws which make his or her recommendation unconvincing. In order to consolidate it, the arguer should provide reliable evidence to prove that the study on which he or she rely to make conclusion is statistically reliable. In addition the arguer must take account into other factors such as price and cost. Above all, the arguer must take different writers' gift into condition.

[ 本帖最后由乳虎于 2007-7-24 23:07 编辑 ]