第一篇新G 的A 【调回节目时间挽回观众和广告】求拍求估分

may2UID: 2874558

The magager concludes to restore the time of weather and local news in order to attract more audience and reduce the loss from advertising revenues, regarding to the complatints and cancelation of ad contracts. However, the conclusion is not sound, neither cogent.
The first question with the argument is whether one year is a valid period to test a program. The manager never makes any reference to the whole climate of the year. What if it is occassionally another deep depression that leads to the loss of viewers and advertisements? Without consideration to such explanations, it is unwarranted to make conclusions with only one year's evidence pieces.
Secondly, does the complaints call for restoring the former time level? The complaints may be about the content of program, or too much advertising time, or even  the length of time which is too long to bear up with.Also, complaints do not end in less viewers directly.It may be some technique advancement that makes certain new media so popular that grapes its audience and contracts? I-phone, for example, was reported to draw quite a lot of people from their computers and televisions to the little phone screen. If so, to restore the time would do no good to getting its viewers back.
Thirdly, does the cancelation of the local businesses' conctracts lead to losing asvertising revenues? Maybe it is a good opportunity for the television station to attract some international businesses who do better than local ones which would bring in more revenues? Besides, it is important to note that even the current boardcasting time has a probelm with  advertising revenues, to restore may be a risk of more loss.Thus, it would be straightly in constrast with the original goal.
In short, the agrument is unwarrant with no regards to other macroeconomical climes and other factors. Also, the evidence given, wich is complaints about the weather and local news program is not clear. Besides, to restore the time might not avoid revenue losses. In conclusion, the argument is not sound.

may2UID: 2874558

up