Argument 20 求拍

niuniuaUID: 3274179

20) The following is a memorandum from the business manager of a television station.
Over the past year, our late-night news program has devoted increased time to national news and less time to weather and local news. During this time period, most of the complaints received from viewers were concerned with our station's coverage of weather and local news. In addition, local businesses that used to advertise during our late-night news program have just canceled their advertising contracts with us. Therefore, in order to attract more viewers to the program and to avoid losing any further advertising revenues, we should restore the time devoted to weather and local news to its former level.
Write a response in which you discuss what specific evidence is needed to evaluate the argument and explain how the evidence would weaken or strengthen the argument.


response:

In the memorandum from the business manager ,he points out that over the past year ,our late-night news program has devoted increased time to national news and less time to weather and local news, then he states two following facts  that most of complaints received from viewers were concerned with our station's coverage of weather and local news and local businesses canceled their advertising contracts with us.In order to divert this trend ,the author proposes a suggestion that we should restore the time devoted to weather and local news to its former level.However, in my observation, the author gets several logic fallacies in his inference so his conclusion is not that convincing.

First of all, the author mentions the complaints received from viewers and the complaints were mostly concerned with our station's coverage of weather and local news,then he regards this fact as an important evidence and proposes the final measurement ,based on it, that restore the time devoted to weather and local news to its former level to attract more viewers to the program.However, in order to fully evaluate this suggestion, we need further evidences about the  exact content of the complaints .The author only says that viewers complain about the coverage of weather and local news,but we don't know whether they want the coverage to become wider or narrower.If they have been complaining about the coverage of weather and local news before the past year and have been requesting for a less time to weather and local news, then our measurement to restore the time devoted to weather and local news will be counterproductive.Or they complained that some subjects are not contained in the weather and local news program, then it will be invalid to just restore the time but not add these subjects. Both of above cases will weaken the author’s recommendation.

What's more, the author assumes that the businesses that used to advertise during the late-night news program canceled their advertising contracts with us due to the change we have made in the time of late-night programs ,therefore he suggests that restore the time to avoid losing any further advertising revenues. This suggestion need more information to support. Some more evidence about the real reason why the business canceled the contracts with us is needed. There are many other possible reasons why the business canceled contracts. Maybe they have found another better partner or they got a big debt and has no remaining money to afford to continue the contract with us ;or they feel their fame is big enough so they don't need advertisement any longer. If either of these situations is true ,it will weaken the author’s inference.

To sum up,in order to get a more sound conclusion ,we need more evidence.We need to know the exact content of the viewers’ complaints, and we need to survey a number of businesses to get the practical reason for which they canceled the contracts with us.