Argument97 欢迎狂拍~ 谢谢谢谢~

xiwartsUID: 2606033

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."



The manager of KICK proposed to increase sports broadcasts in order to reach more audience, thus gaining more profits. The claim was supported by a national survey showing most men want to see more sports programs on TV, and the fact that WACK gained a larger audience by offering more sports coverage. However, the proposition was weakened by several unsubstantiated points stated below.

The author cited a national survey, wanting to prove the audience would like to see more sports programs on TV. First, the author failed to offer how the survey was conducted, leaving the results be open to doubt. Then, he/she did not provide the detailed number and portion of the males who like to see more sports programs on television, the “sizeable majority” could range from 51 percents to 99 percents. With the ambiguous word "majority", the writer also ignored female audience, which accounts perhaps half or more of the whole audience. What if they did not like to see more sports programs on TV? Finally, it was a survey conducted throughout the country, what if the audience in the viewing area of KICK who did not apply to the results?

Then, the author showed an example of WACK increasing its sports broadcasts, intending to prove the result of the survey were fit into practical use. But it was also weaken by the possibility that the doubled number of audience may be a result of other factors. For instance, WACK may have introduced or improved other TV programs, like brought in new entertainment shows or developed the news programs , thus attracting more audience. And it could also be a result of fewer advertisements inserted in programs on the channels of WACK. If other factors were not precluded, it was unsubstantiated to claim the increased number of audience was a result only of increasing sports programs.

Given that the survey was enough to prove that the whole audience in KICK's viewing area would like to see more sports programmes on TV and WACK indeed promote its number of custmers in the viewing area, it was indefensible to state that the company could gain more profits with the increased audience. That conclusion was based upon the assumption that the profits were only determined by the number of audience. There obviously were other factors, such as the costs of increasing the sports programs may go up sharply, and making the profits be equal or even fewer than before. And another factor may be the competing TV stations may also increase their sports broadcasts, leaving the number of audience of KICK unchanged.

In sum, the argument was groundless because of its unconvincing evidence and false analogy. To give more credibility to the conclusion, the arguer needs to provide more information to validate the causal relationship between increased sports programs and WACK's audience boost and the comparability of KICK and WACK. The author should also provide evidence to show that if KICK gains larger audience share, its profits will increase.

家家☆yoonjaeUID: 2646910

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."

The manager of KICK proposed to increase sports broadcasts in order to reach more audience, thus gaining more profits.（原作者的opinion） The claim was supported by a national survey showing most men want to see more sports programs on TV, （这里其实概括一些会显得更高明，考虑一下这么说，the claim was supported by a national survey which shows obvious preference when men choose program on television，虽然看起来字数比原来还多了些，不过提炼出来的东西质量不一样哦^^，尽量避免简单重复原文会比较好。）and the fact that WACK gained a larger audience by offering more sports coverage. （原作者的立论依据） However, the proposition was weakened by several unsubstantiated points stated below.【开头思路清晰，开门见山，做得不错】

The author cited a national survey, wanting to prove the audience would like to see more sports programs on TV. （这一句就有问题了，开始论证的时候，每段首句是TS，即topic sentence，每一个TS都要做到概括本段所指出的逻辑错误，换句话说，每段第一句就要摆出你要驳斥的问题所在。与此同时，为了合理提现论证的层次，记得要使用合适的逻辑连接词，这对老米来说很重要，可以想见一个rater每天要改无数篇不同的AW文章，逻辑连接词对他们而言就如同信号，一定不能少。这段的TS需要重写。）First, the author failed to offer how the survey was conducted, leaving the results be open to doubt. （一般来说，原文内提供的survey或者是report等诸如此类的内容，我们都直接认为是正确的，具体的你可以参考以下这个帖子：https://bbs.gter.net/thread-968840-1-1.html）Then, he/she did not provide the detailed number and portion of the males who like to see more sports programs on television, the “sizeable majority” could range from 51 percents to 99 percents. With the ambiguous word "majority", the writer also ignored female audience, which accounts perhaps half or more of the whole audience.（这两句衔接得很不好，话说得太急了，思路是跳跃的，the “sizeable majority” could range from 51 percents to 99 percents，然后？然后这说明了什么？说明这种ambiguous的word值得商榷，值得怀疑，这是一句，可是你在99 percents后面又用了句号，断开了原本的意思，到了后面的一个 “majority” 又居然撤出female了。。。话要一句句说完整，说清楚，不要吃着碗里瞧着锅里，一条毛病说完了再说另一条，不要着急。）What if they did not like to see more sports programs on TV? Finally, it was a survey conducted throughout the country, what if the audience in the viewing area of KICK who did not apply to the results? （慎用反问，可以考虑用it is entirely possible之类的句子）（段末通常要有对整段的总结，再次概括问题所在，基于之前的论述，所以是什么什么错误。）

Then, （连接词用得不好，要清晰表述论证层次）the author showed an example of WACK increasing its sports broadcasts, intending to prove the result of the survey were fit into practical use. But it was also weaken by the possibility that the doubled number of audience may be a result of other factors.（这个是重复作者推理过程，不是指出逻辑错误，这不是TS，把这两句的主体内容整合一下重写TS，跟第一段的问题一样。并且要注意与后文的衔接。）For instance, WACK may have introduced or improved other TV programs, like brought in new entertainment shows or developed the news programs, thus attracting more audience. And （考虑用Likewise之类的词同义替换一下会更好） it could also be a result of fewer advertisements inserted in programs on the channels of WACK. If other factors were not precluded, it was unsubstantiated to claim the increased number of audience was a result only of increasing sports programs. 【这一段中的两个合理推断做得不错，但是段落结构需要重整一下，一定要有明确的TS】

Given that the survey was enough to prove that the whole audience in KICK's viewing area would like to see more sports programs on TV and WACK indeed promote its number of customers in the viewing area, it was indefensible to state that the company could gain more profits with the increased audience. （还是TS问题，TS一定要摆出逻辑错误所在，直指问题核心，bla bla说了一堆难道要rater替你总结么？）That conclusion was based upon the assumption that the profits were only determined by the number of audience. There obviously were other factors, such as the costs of increasing the sports programs may go up sharply, and making the profits be equal or even fewer than before.（写了factors，但是事实上你只说了一个factor，就是cost，只要说清cost就可以了，还是跟之前一样的问题，太急了，思维跳跃，指出cost problem，然后再说cost problem是如何影响profit的，一步步来。） And another factor may be the competing TV stations may also increase their sports broadcasts, leaving the number of audience of KICK unchanged.（差一句总结）

In sum, the argument was groundless because of its unconvincing evidence and false analogy. To give more credibility to the conclusion, the arguer needs to provide more information to validate the causal relationship between increased sports programs and WACK's audience boost and the comparability of KICK and WACK. The author should also provide evidence to show that if KICK gains larger audience share, its profits will increase. 【个人习惯，结尾不改】

红色为有问题的部分，绿色批注为个人建议，蓝色批注为整段评价，紫色部分为不错的用词

xiwartsUID: 2606033

修改后第二版
The manager of KICK proposed to increase sports broadcasts in order to reach more audience, thus gaining more profits. The claim was supported by a national survey，the claim was supported by a national survey which shows obvious preference when men choose program on television，and the fact that WACK gained a larger audience by offering more sports coverage. However, the proposition was weakened by several unsubstantiated points stated below.

The author first falsely relied on the national survey to infer audience would like more sports programs. First, the author failed to offer how the survey was conducted, leaving the results be open to doubt. Then, he/she did not provide the detailed number and portion of the males who like to see more sports programs on television, the “sizeable majority” could range from 51 percents to 99 percents, leaving the ambiguous meaning of the word "majority". Also, the writer also ignored female audience, which accounts perhaps half or more of the whole audience. What if they did not like to see more sports programs on TV? Perhaps they prefer fewer sports programs. Finally, it was a survey conducted throughout the country, what if the audience in the viewing area of KICK who did not apply to the results? It is possible that they do not suit the results.

Then, the author relied on the assumption that the increasing number of audience is due to more sports broadcasts of WACK. The author intends to prove the result of the survey were fit into practical use. But it was also weaken by the possibility that the doubled number of audience may be a result of other factors. For instance, WACK may have introduced or improved other TV programs, like brought in new entertainment shows or developed the news programs, thus attracting more audience. Likewise, it could also be a result of fewer advertisements inserted in programs on the channels of WACK. If other factors were not precluded, it was unsubstantiated to claim the increased number of audience was a result only of increasing sports programs.

Given that the author could give substantial evidence to prove the above points, it was indefensible to state that the company could gain more profits with the increased audience. That conclusion was based upon the assumption that the profits were only determined by the number of audience. There obviously were other factors, such as the costs of increasing the sports programs may go up sharply which makes the profits be equal or even fewer than before, and competing TV stations may also increase their sports broadcasts, leaving the number of audience of KICK unchanged. To prove the statement, the arguer should rule out other factors possibly influencing the profits.

In sum, the argument was groundless because of its unconvincing evidence and false analogy. To give more credibility to the conclusion, the arguer needs to provide more information to validate the causal relationship between increased sports programs and WACK's audience boost and the comparability of KICK and WACK. The author should also provide evidence to show that if KICK gains larger audience share, its profits will increase.