argument97 KICK 电视节目与盈利

yvonnesmartUID: 2380005

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: 401/576        TIME: 00:30:00+15min          DATE: 2007-8-17 14:14:32

The arguer poses that in order to increase company profits though the way of gaining a larger audience share, KICK should revise the broadcast schedule to more sports coverage. The conclusion is based on the national survey revealing that majority of men would like additional sports programs on the television. In addition, he/she also cites the fact another station WACK increased its sports broadcasts win the doubled share of the television audience than before. The argument is well presented with several evidences, yet it is far from satisfactorily reasoned. Indeed, the thread of the of the argument is based on several logic fallacies.

Firstly, the manager cites a national survey to support his/her argument. Yet, anyone knows that the national situation would not always share the same in different regions. Because of the variety of traditions and living customs in special areas, there is the possibility that local people have less interest in additional sports programs than the survey's result says. Thus, the evidence of the survey should reevaluate before any conclusions are made.

Even if the survey's result is right to the regional situation, it is also unwarranted to equal people would like to see additional sports to people would really cost time on watching such additional sports programs. From the common sense, we know that one's desirability may not always be carried out in practice. And especially in our accelerating world, living pace enforce people dive into work and leaving less time to entertainment. Moreover, men are not always accustomed to sit before the television, while what is women who like to spend hours before televisions. Therefore, the manager should pay more attention on the real hours audience would like to spend on sports programs rather than just totally believe in the coarse survey as the argument mentioned.

The argument make a false analyze in citing the example that another television station WACK increased its audience group though the approach of enlarging the broadcasting of sports programs, because the situations in WACK and in KICK may not be the same. They may have different style of audience group, the former might focus on programs flatter male group, and however, the latter may focus on females. And there might be the possibility that WACK reducing the advertisement time which would caster more audience. In addition, if WACK satisfies audience in the sporting programs, the arguer should reevaluate their ability to compete with WACK and cost-benefit effect of increasing sporting time.

Moreover, even is sporting programs would possibly enlarge the audience group of KICK, it is ridiculous to assume the station would certainly win more profit though this approach. For the profit of station is related with numbers of factors, such as editing expense, the cost of sporting programs’ copyright. Also, it is not the mere way to win money though increasing profit, such as commercial investment of certain companies, optimize the quality of programs which would enlarge the audience share.

In sum, the evidences provided in the argument do not lend strong support to the conclusion and final suggestion. In order to be more convincing, the arguer should provide solid proof that there are more local audiences who would prefer to watch additional sports programs. In addition, the arguer must verify that the successful example of WACK is also applicable to the very situation in KICK. At the same time, I would like to know the real methods to enhance the profits of the company.

phillipsareaUID: 2318537

The arguer poses that in order to increase company profits though the way of gaining a larger audience share, KICK should revise the broadcast schedule to more sports coverage. The conclusion is based on the national survey revealing that majority of men would like additional sports programs on the television. In addition, he/she also cites the fact another station WACK increased its sports broadcasts win the doubled share of the television audience than before. The argument is well presented with several evidences, yet it is far from satisfactorily reasoned. Indeed, the thread of the of the argument is based on several logic fallacies.

Firstly, the manager cites a national survey to support his/her argument. Yet, anyone knows that the national situation would not always share the same in different regions. Because of the variety of traditions and living customs in special areas, there is the possibility that local people have less interest in additional sports programs than the survey's result says. Thus, the evidence of the survey should reevaluate before any conclusions are made.(叙述的不太清楚,看了几遍才明白)

Even if the survey's result is right to the regional situation, it is also unwarranted to equal people would like to see additional sports to people would really cost time on watching such additional sports programs(语法有问题). From the common sense, we know that one's desirability may not always be carried out in practice. And especially in our accelerating world, living pace enforce people dive into work and leaving less time to entertainment. Moreover, men are not always accustomed to sit before the television, while what is women who like to spend hours before televisions.(这个观点在美国人看来,实在是歧视) Therefore, the manager should pay more attention on the real hours audience would like to spend on sports programs rather than just totally believe in the coarse survey as the argument mentioned. (两段可以合并)

The argument make a false analyze in citing the example that another television station WACK increased its audience group though the approach of enlarging the broadcasting of sports programs, because the situations in WACK and in KICK may not be the same. They may have different style of audience group, the former might focus on programs flatter male group, and however, the latter may focus on females. And there might be the possibility that WACK reducing the advertisement time which would caster more audience(举的蛮好). In addition, if WACK satisfies audience in the sporting programs, the arguer should reevaluate their ability to compete with WACK and cost-benefit effect of increasing sporting time.

Moreover, even is sporting programs would possibly enlarge the audience group of KICK, it is ridiculous to assume the station would certainly win more profit though this approach. For the profit of station is related with numbers of factors, such as editing expense, the cost of sporting programs’ copyright. Also, it is not the mere way to win money though increasing profit, such as commercial investment of certain companies, optimize the quality of programs which would enlarge the audience share.

In sum, the evidences provided in the argument do not lend strong support to the conclusion and final suggestion. In order to be more convincing, the arguer should provide solid proof that there are more local audiences who would prefer to watch additional sports programs. In addition, the arguer must verify that the successful example of WACK is also applicable to the very situation in KICK. At the same time, I would like to know the real methods to enhance the profits of the company(这句是想说明什么?).