argument220 寄托4人组 8.8 作业

tangjihedeUID: 2107695

Revised：
Argument220  
------摘要------
作者：寄托家园作文版普通用户     共用时间：30分2秒     458 words
从2005年7月8日10时48分到2005年7月8日11时30分
------题目------
The following appeared in an article in a magazine for writers.
'A recent study showed that in describing a typical day's conversation, people make an average of 23 references to watching television and only 1 reference to reading fiction. This result suggests that, compared with the television industry, the publishing and bookselling industries are likely to decline in profitability. Therefore, people who wish to have careers as writers should acquire training and experience in writing for television rather than for print media.'

提纲：
1。reference少不代表读者一定少。他们可能读的很多，但引用的不多。
2。就算读小说的人少，也不代表整个读者群人数少。报纸、杂志、严肃读物。
3。就算读者比观众少，不一定出版业的利润低。成本的问题。
4。就算出版业利润底，不代表稿酬低。
5。就算受众少、稿酬低，不代表就一定要转行。成功的作家不一定为金钱、读者人数所吸引。
------正文------

By appealing to a recent study, the author tries to convince us that people wishing to be writers should write for television rather than for print media. A close scrutiny, however, will reveal that the author's argument suffers from several flaws and is therefore not very convincing.

To begin with, granted the validity of the study, the mere fact that people making much more references to watching TV than to reading fiction does not follow that there are more audience of TV programs than fiction readers. It is highly possible that more people read fictions, although they seldom refer to what they read. No evidence is offered by the author to exclude this possibility.

Even granted there are more TV audience than fiction fans, the author still fails to show that TV audience are more than the total number of readers of all publishing fields, such as newspapers, magazines, serious readings, so on and so forth.  It might be the case that the total market of these printed materials is much larger than TV industries and therefore there is a promising career for paper-based writers.

Moreover, even if the number of TV audience is more than that of total readers, it is still not necessarily the case that the profit TV industries earn is higher than publishing ones: the author does not compare the cost of each party. Perhaps TV programs win more audience but fail to earn more money since their cost might be much higher than publishing books. The author thus unfairly assumes that more audience will lead to higher profit.

Even granted TV industries do earn a better profit, it does not necessarily imply that writers for television will have better income. Maybe the program editors, reporters, administrators and all other staffs enjoy the profit, while writers can share only a small part of it. On the contrary, although the profit of publishing industries is not good, they nevertheless might show more respect to their writers and give them a very good reward. If this is the case, then it is still hard to convince writers to concern TV industries more.

Finally, even granted that writers engaged in TV industries have better rewards, the author still fails to prove that better income outweighs other factors a writer might concern with. Writers might care more about the content and significance of their writings than how much money they can earn. They might even not care about the number of their readers, but only about whether they show the public their thoughtful ideas. No reason is offered to persuade us that writers will make decisions about their careers only based on rewards and popularity.  

In sum, the argument offered by the author is not very persuasive as it stands. To make it more convincing, the author would have to provide more information about what writers really care, what an income they can gain in TV industries, and whether TV programs are more appealing than printed materials.

bridgewalkerUID: 208595

argument220 寄托4人组 8.8 作业

Revised：
Argument220  
------摘要------
作者：寄托家园作文版普通用户     共用时间：30分2秒     458 words
从2005年7月8日10时48分到2005年7月8日11时30分
------题目------
The following appeared in an article in a magazine for writers.
'A recent study showed that in describing a typical day's conversation, people make an average of 23 references to watching television and only 1 reference to reading fiction. This result suggests that, compared with the television industry, the publishing and bookselling industries are likely to decline in profitability. Therefore, people who wish to have careers as writers should acquire training and experience in writing for television rather than for print media.'

提纲：
1。reference少不代表读者一定少。他们可能读的很多，但引用的不多。
2。就算读小说的人少，也不代表整个读者群人数少。报纸、杂志、严肃读物。
3。就算读者比观众少，不一定出版业的利润低。成本的问题。
4。就算出版业利润底，不代表稿酬低。
5。就算受众少、稿酬低，不代表就一定要转行。成功的作家不一定为金钱、读者人数所吸引。
------正文------

By appealing to a recent study, the author tries to convince us that people wishing to be writers should write for television rather than for print media. A close scrutiny, however, will reveal that the author's argument suffers from several flaws and is therefore not very convincing (避免重复可换一种表达).

To begin with, granted the validity of the study, the mere fact that people making much more references to watching TV than to reading fiction does not follow that there are more audience of TV programs than fiction readers. It is highly possible that more people read fictions, although they seldom refer to what they read. No evidence is offered by the author to exclude this possibility.
(感觉展开不够，可以多给一些alternative explanation来质疑这个study)

Even granted (建议换表达) there are more TV audience than fiction fans, the author still fails to show that TV audience are more than the total number of readers of all publishing fields, such as newspapers, magazines, serious readings, so on and so forth (有点wordy?).  It might be the case that the total market of these printed materials is much larger than TV industries and therefore there is a promising career for paper-based writers.

Moreover, even if the number of TV audience is more (larger?) than that of total readers, it is still not necessarily the case that the profit TV industries earn is higher than publishing ones: the author does not compare the cost of each party. Perhaps TV programs win more audience but fail to earn more money since their cost might be much higher than publishing books. The author thus unfairly assumes that more audience will lead to higher profit.
(你好像犯错了：题目说的是与TV相比Print的利润可能会decline，不是说Print会比TV利润low！)

Even granted TV industries do earn a better profit, it does not necessarily imply that writers for television will have better income. Maybe the program editors, reporters, administrators and all other staffs enjoy the profit, while writers can share only a small part of it. On the contrary, although the profit of publishing industries is not good, they nevertheless might show more respect to their writers and give them a very good reward. If this is the case, then it is still hard to convince writers to concern TV industries more.
(不错)

Finally, even granted that writers engaged in TV industries have better rewards, the author still fails to prove that better income outweighs other factors a writer might concern with. Writers might care more about the content and significance of their writings than how much money they can earn. They might even not care about the number of their readers, but only about whether they show the public their thoughtful ideas. No reason is offered to persuade us that writers will make decisions about their careers only based on rewards and popularity.
原因可以在给多一点

In sum, the argument offered by the author is not very persuasive as it stands. To make it more convincing, the author would have to provide more information about what writers really care, what an income they can gain in TV industries, and whether TV programs are more appealing than printed materials.

总结一下：攻击点有点儿散，有的点展开不够。其实可以再组织一下：
一．攻击study没有反映事实。
Typical day’s conversation是什么场所（学校、家庭、俱乐部？）、什么人（教授、大学生、水管工？）、什么时候（最近是不是有什么电视剧热播？）、什么地区（范围有多大？能不能大到反映行业的趋势？）。
二．攻击study推不出出版业利润会下降。
1．Reference少不等于人们读/买出版物少（读物内容不适合日常对话引用；读得少不等于买得少，没时间看。）
2．Fiction不能代表整个出版业。
3．未来的其他因素可能会使TV的利润decline，而不是Print的。
三．攻击Writer一定要为TV写稿
1．在Print行业里赚得不一定少。
2．从业不完全是为钱。

漏洞还有很多，先写这些。

tangjihedeUID: 2107695

多谢！那几个地方都疏忽了。关于decline，我觉得还可以说1。过去是什么情况，没能证明现在比过去差。2。出版业也许会采取对策提高利润。