issue 97

jefferysyUID: 2928828

The following appeared in a memo from the manager oftelevision 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."

第一：全国性的调查仍具有片面性不能放映到个体。
第二：一个措施的改变在别的地方取得成绩不一定也适应另一个地方。
第三：作者将结果强加，本是带来观众，最后说带来利益。


In this statement, the author said that increasing more sport shows can draw lager audiences to KICK and gain more profits than before for his company. To support what he said, the author cites survey around the world and compare to positive change in WACK. At first glance, it seems to reasoning, however, for a further inherent cogitation, which is not perfect in some facets.

Firstly, what the author wants to substantiate KICK by using a national survey, which contain a widely space and complicated process. It may not as exactly precise as we expect when we put it to analogy an endemic range. Just like weather prediction, there will be rainy tomorrow in one states of the country. However, the weather prediction can’t assure to rain every place in states. So, citing a national survey isn’t feasible for this statement.

Secondly, for engaging more audience, the author take the same measure happened and worked in WACK. Reaping profits may stem from all kind of reasons. For instance, people who really indicted to sports at that place or national sports time are show at that time and so on. When apply the situation of WACK to KICK. Result may change, also we have no idea about the culture and hobby of KICK. To the bad thinking, if people do not watch sport shows or seldom observe them, then what the author expects may lead a opposite influence.

Lastly, increasing audiences is the goal and finally profits become the conclusion. Apparently, numbers of audience have nothing to do with profit. Company may import some sport shows to relax audience or profile the shows to attract more people for free. To KICK, maybe he prefer audience to profit. Also the conclusion seems to exclude the statement.

In sum, the author’s state is unfounded, to make this convincing, the author need a more profound evidence. Like, make a small survey in KICK, and pay a attention to it’s past and future trend or others
(332)

AK_小儿UID: 2784558

In this statement, the author said that increasing more sport shows can draw lager(large只能形容数量，样本，这里应该加number of) audiences(不能说draw audience吧，应该是attract audience或者draw audiences’ attention) to KICK and gain more profits than before for his company. To support what he said, the author cites(这里最好用一个时态吧) (a) survey around the world(world?) and compare to(这里有问题但我不知道怎么改) positive change in WACK. At first glance, it seems to reasoning, however, for a further inherent cogitation, which is not perfect in some facets.(这句话很nice)

Firstly, what the author wants to substantiate KICK(证实KICK？) by using a national survey, which contain a widely space and complicated process. It may not as exactly precise as we expect (may not be exactly precise as we expect) when we put it to analogy an endemic range (when it comes to an endemic range). Just like weather prediction, there will be rainy tomorrow in one states of the country. However, the weather prediction can’t assure to(assure sb of sth) rain every place in states. So, citing a national survey isn’t feasible for this statement.

Secondly, for engaging (to attract) more audience, the author take the same measure happened and worked in WACK(这里用happened 和 worked都不适合，adopted或者executed应该会好些，或者就直接用  as WACK). Reaping profits may stem (?没看懂) from all kind of reasons. For instance, people who really indicted to sports at that place or national sports time are show at that time and so on. When apply(ing) the situation of WACK to KICK, result may change, also we have no idea about the culture and hobby of KICK. To the bad(worst) thinking, if people do not watch sport shows or seldom observe them, then what the author expects(measure不是发言人的期望导致相反结果而是这个措施导致相反的结果) may lead a opposite influence.

Lastly, increasing audiences is the goal and finally profits become the conclusion. Apparently, numbers of audience have nothing to do with profit.(这样说太绝对了，不是没有任何关系，而是不一定有关系) Company may import some sport shows to relax audience or profile(?) the shows to attract more people for free. To KICK, maybe he prefer audience to profit. Also the conclusion seems to exclude the statement.

In sum, the author’s state is unfounded, to make this convincing, the author need a more profound (深奥的？不好吧 accurate好一些吧)evidence. Like, make a small survey in KICK, and pay a attention to it’s past and future trend or others

Lz对于argument中的谬误是找的比较全面了，只是反驳不太给力所，以字数也不太够。
其实反驳最好的方法，就是举反例，而且写argument，个人觉得最好的凑字数的方法也是举反例。比如第一点，说调查不一定适用在这个地区，就可以说很多，调查不是权威机构做的所以不准确啊，调查的可能是大城市KICK在小城市，调查是全国的平均水平而KICK的男生不喜欢体育节目等等。当然lz用天气预报的类比也是可以的。
同样第二点也可以说很多例如KICK女性多，KICK男性不看体育节目，KCIK男性很忙没时间看电视，WACK在增加体育节目的同时也采取别的措施等等。
另外，建议lz写argument时候可以先理清题目中错误的逻辑顺序是怎样的，攻击谬误最好有一个主次，例如这篇文章

1．Survey显示全国男性都喜欢体育节目
2．WACK增加体育节目=》WACK观众增加

1+2 =》KICK通过增加体育节目可以让观众增加（3）=》利润增加（4）



我们反驳主要在于这两个推出的阶段，这样就有让步有逻辑可言，先反驳12，然后让步，即使12可以推出3   3也推不出4
个人意见 仅供参考

jefferysyUID: 2928828

多谢楼主指出逻辑思维确实没理清 因为那天有事， 所以写快了 对于楼主建议 我已经在朝着这方面改进 至于stem from是来源于的意思