argument153

宏米UID: 2676112

At the very beginning of this editorial, the editor unfairly points out that there is a keen relationship between the rate of teenage crime in Alta and the amount of violence shown on television. In order to prove this relationship convincing, the editor tries to lists some survey results to make it seem true. Some of the editorial sounds believably, while others seem to totally opposite.


The television sets appearing and the increasing rate of the teenage crime are just that a thing happens after another but may not have any cause effect. Without ruling out other possibilities that may increasing the rate of crimes committed by teenagers, just depending on the rate increased after the television appears, the editor's unfairly assumption is unwarranted. Even though it is really the television's appearing that increases the teenager's crimes rate in Alta, the increasing rate of teenager crime and the violence shown on television's incensement are not comparable to each other actually. It is just the coincidence that this matches the increase in violence shown. The editor facially regards the coincidence on time must be the cause and effect relationship.





Supposing television's appearing really increases the rate of the teenage crimes, the showing evidence, displaying more violent behavior, is irrelevant to the editor's theory. Let us firstly dim the violent behavior. Violent behaviors are some behaviors that contain violent factors but is not equates to crime. The editor wrongly equates the two things together. The national studies then fails to illustrate the editor's theory and the national studies may not be suitable to the circumstance in Alta, which is still lack of evidence to further prove.


The editor’s purpose may be good to the next generations but the editorial has some problems that make this purpose sounds not believable. The editor mistakenly regards the time coincidence as the cause and effect relationship. Based on this falsely relationship, the statics the editor takes as an example may not that convincing. The finally suggestion then is lack the possibilities to carry it out.


Without any background information about the Observer, the editor fails to demonstrate the studies reasonable. The editor fails to illustrate the Observer's survey is scientific and worth trusting. Even the survey really represents the common situation; the respondents are all parents can still show the respondents are not that representative. Even the respondents are really quite representative on the surface, the suddenly announced prime time, lasting from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m., is underdetermined. The survey the editor lists here is quite go against the editor's purpose.



What's more, the editor's suggestion may not go on smoothly only hoping the television viewers to demand this kind of things. As we all known, this kind of events may be related to the government's business. The television viewers' demand may not be so representative that can finally prove the budget come to effect. What's more, the editor's suggestion fails to mention the reason why the television viewers should do this demand. Maybe watching violence shown during prime time is their best favor, and then it seems unhelpful to force them to do this demand. Thus, the editor's suggestion may not go on eventually.