菜鸟上路~argument153~欢迎使劲儿拍

赛螃蟹UID: 2994349

153. The following is from an editorial in the Imdvale Observer, a local newspaper.

"Ever since the 1950's, when television sets began to appear in the average home, the rate of crimes committed by teenagers in the country of alta has steadily increased.This increase in teenage crime parallels the increase in violence shown on television.According to several national studies, even very young children who watch a great number of television shows featuring violent scenes display more violent behavior within their home environment than do children who do not watch violent shows.furthermore, in a survey conducted by the Observer, over 90 percent of the respondents were parents who indicated that prime-time television-programs that are shown between 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. should show less violence.Therefore, in order ro lower the rate ofteenage crime in Alta,television viewers should demand that television programmer reduce the amount of violence during prime time."

Appealing to television viewers of demanding the reduce of violence shown during prime time, this editorial seems presenting compelling and adequate evidence, but not logical to make such conclusion actually. Observations, studies and surveys have been cited to stand by this verdict, however, other possibilities have been neglected and the results of the study and survey are not suitable for this conclusion.

In the first place, the cited studies mention that it is very young children that display more violent behavior than who do not watch violent shows instead of teenagers. Our common sense indicates that very young children own a strong interest and ability of imitation and it is understandable for them to imitate the violent behaviors in programs. However, as they grow up, most of them will give up this bad behavior as their ability of discretion develops. As a result, a person who behaves violently due to imitation when they are extremely young
will not definitely commit crimes in their teenage years. Thus, this evidence cannot prove violence shown in television program has increased the crime among teenagers as well.

What is more, as far as I am concerned, the truth of the survey presented in the editorial cannot be proved as it does not report how many parents do not response to the survey. This kind of parents are likely to be the opponents to the indication of 90 percent parents. Thus, the proportion of parents approving less violence shown may be lower that 90 percent in fact. Thus, the conclusion may not be strongly supported by this survey.

To say the least, suppose that we have discovered that reducing the violence showing in the television will help decrease the rate of teenage crime, the time period should be controlled is not 7 p.m. to 9 p.m., which is the prime time for adults watching TV instead of teenagers. Pay attention to the fact that teenagers are most likely to watch programs in the afternoon after school and doing their homework in the evening, and we will understand reducing the violence shown from 7 to 9 in the evening will not work for the purpose of showing less violence to children. Thus, we can conclude that the resolution of the editorial is invalid even if the causality between crime and violence on TV does exist.

Above all, this editorial concerns about a very significant problem among teenagers. However, the observations, studies and surveys mentioned in the argument cannot prove the conclusion comprehensively. To make it more reasonably, the study should be conducted to investigate the circumstance of teenagers and the result of survey should take parents who do not responded into concern. Also, the conclusion itself should be adjusted as a resolution for this issue. In this way can this editorial become a reliable and well founded argument.