ARGUMENT220

yimingleonUID: 2688056

"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."
WORDS: 267          TIME: 00:22:31          DATE: 2010-2-5 15:58:01

和今天的I一样，时间还剩很多，就是不知道怎么写了……


The arguer presents his conclusion that the publishing and bookselling industries are likely to decline in profitability. To support his claim, he referred to a study that shows people are more likely to talk with TV than reading. A second thought on this problem will show easily how groundless such conclusion is.

First of all, the author fails to convince us that people's references in conversation have a direct relationship with the decline of the publishing industries. As the main method of mass media, TV is more popular with ordinary people. People watch the same program at the same time, which makes it easier for TV shows to become a common topic or reference. On the other side, it may very possible that both people don't share the similar reading experience, which makes it hard for them to resonant with the same reading material.

Secondly, compared with reading, TV shows are more social and closer to people's daily life. Since their purpose is to making money, TV shows are more likely to be down-to-earth, and the result is that they are more possible to appear during a daily talk. Suppose you hear a conversation about classic art, or such serious topics about science, it might hard for you to combine such conversation with daily, relax topics.

After this, the arguer commits a fallacy of red herring. Although there's no direct evidence that the publishing and bookselling industries are going to decline, the arguer gives the advice rudely that writers should change their jobs from writing books to writing for TVs, which may hurt a lot of writers.

家家☆yoonjaeUID: 2646910

220. "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."

The arguer presents his conclusion that the publishing and bookselling industries are likely to decline in profitability. (原文的逻辑链分析得不到位，作者的结论应该是therefore后面的内容，也就是“people who wish to have careers as writers should acquire training and experience in writing for television rather than for print media”，应该把这个结论概括表述出来。) To support his claim, he referred to a study that shows people are more likely to talk with TV than reading. A second thought on this problem will show easily how groundless such conclusion is.【开头的思路是正确的，argument的一般开头就是：首先陈述作者立场，接着概括作者的推理过程（也就是逻辑链），然后引出总领下文的句子。但是你对作者的逻辑分析不够，要清楚并且准确地整理作者的逻辑链，每一个相关的概念跟对象，都要严格按照原本的分析，不能偷换概念，不能模棱两可，一定要一针见血。】

First of all, the author fails to convince us that people's references in conversation have a direct relationship with the decline of the publishing industries. （这个direct用得有待商榷是其一，即使有direct的关系，也未必是decisive的，其二就是作者明明说的是publishing and bookselling industries，怎么到你这里就变成publishing industries了？）As the main method of mass media, TV is more popular with ordinary people. People watch the same program at the same time, which makes it easier for TV shows to become a common topic or reference. （思路是跳跃的，这两句你强调了TV是一种更为popular的大众传播媒介因为它更为easier，那么这跟我们讨论的这个逻辑错误有什么关联？一定要把这一部分说完整，这个被你略过或者说想当然尔的内容恰恰是整个argument考察的重点，pass这个部分的后果可想而知。） On the other side, it may very possible that both people don't share the similar reading experience, which makes it hard for them to resonant with the same reading material. （跟上两句是一样的问题，而且段末也没有总结整段论证的句子。）【Argument每一段的论证，都是集中说明作者所犯的其中一个逻辑错误，通常也是总分总的结构，第一句为TS，直指逻辑错误核心，精炼地表达出错误所在即可，不需要过多地重复原文的内容；然后是具体分析错误，或说明漏洞所在，或陈述其他合理推断等，分析的过程中一定要步步为营，不能跳跃地说明，因为rater不会对你的句子做任何所谓合理的推断，一定要把你的结论跟所指出的逻辑错误联系起来，不要想当然；最后一般用一个句子总结本段。】

Secondly, compared with reading, TV shows are more social and closer to people's daily life. （这个TS就完全牛头不对马嘴了，argument需要你说的是原作者推理过程的错误或者说是漏洞，你这个跟作者的表述好像一点边都沾不上。）Since their purpose is to making money, TV shows are more likely to be down-to-earth, and the result is that they are more possible to appear during a daily talk. Suppose you hear a conversation about classic art, or such serious topics about science, it might hard for you to combine such conversation with daily, relax topics. 【鉴于这一段的方向性错误，就不接着往下改了。】


这篇argument只写了20mins就说写不下去了，可是看你的论证却非常单薄，其实这篇有几个非常明显的逻辑错误，你再仔细地多读几遍，然后把作者的逻辑链整理出来，重新写一遍。楼主对argument的认识现在还是很初级层面的，请参考版内相关精华帖和版友的优秀习作，多加练习，加油了。

After this, the arguer commits a fallacy of red herring. Although there's no direct evidence that the publishing and bookselling industries are going to decline, the arguer gives the advice rudely that writers should change their jobs from writing books to writing for TVs, which may hurt a lot of writers. 【个人习惯，结尾不改】

红色为有问题的部分，绿色批准为个人建议，蓝色批注为段落评价。