[a习作temp] Argument97 Thrive小组第9次作业求拍！ [复制链接]

vic_rain
UID: 2304309

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 0
寄托币: 306
注册时间: 2007-2-14
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2008-2-23 00:25:09 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

TOPIC: ARGUMENT97 - The following appeared in a memo from the manager of television station KICK.

"A nationwide survey reveals that a sizeable majority of men would like to see additional sports programs on television. After television station WACK increased its sports broadcasts, its share of the television audience in its viewing area almost doubled. To gain a larger audience share in our area, and thus increase company profits, KICK should also revise its broadcast schedule to include more sports coverage."
WORDS: 408 TIME: 00:30:00 DATE: 2008-2-23 上午 12:20:58

By citing a nationwide survey and making a comparison to television station WACK, the author concludes that KICK's broadcast schedule should include more sports coverage in order to gain a larger audience share and thus increase company profits. Although this argument is well-presented on the surface, close scrutiny on it reveals several flaws, which renders it not well-reasoned thus unconvincing.

First, no evidence has been given that the nationwide survey is statistically reliable, since majority of men are not necessarily representative of all people concerning television programs. For all we know, women and children, who always have more spare time than men, are more likely to pay attention to television programs. If they are not interested with sports programs at all, then the author's conclusion that KICK would gain a larger audience by including more sports coverage is dubious, especially considering that women prefer show business programs and children love cartoons more. As a matter of fact, this is always the case.

Secondly, WACK's audience doubled not necessarily due to its increased sports broadcasts. Any of other revisions in its broadcast schedule, such as decrease in advertisement, more recreational programs, would account for this change. Also, it entirely possible that other television stations might supply worse programs resulting from decreasing investment, bad management, or economic depression, and majority of audiences have no other choice but resort to WACK's schedule. Any of these scenarios, if true, would cast considerable doubt on the argument's conclusion.

Thirdly, even if majority of overall population would like to see sports programs on television and WACK's recent success attributed to increased sports broadcasts, KICK would not necessarily be profitable as a result if include more sports coverage. Profitability is a function of both revenue and expense. Perhaps the KICK's increasing costs of obtaining more high-quality sports programs, or decreasing revenue from advertisement because of yielding schedule, renders it unprofitable despite its popularity, saying nothing of increased profits. Without weighing revenue against expenses the author's conclution is premature at best.

In sum, this argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To bolster it, the author must provide evidence that most people would like to enjoy sports programs on television and doubled quantity of WACK's audience is attributable to its increased sports programs rather other alternative explanations. To better evaluate this argument, I would need detailed cost and estimates for more sports coverage -- to determinate the likelihood that even a popular such television station would turn a profit.