argument220 Ares战队第三次作业(by victor)

victorduguUID: 2176422

220.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."

最近一次研究显示当描述日常对话的时候，人们平均有23次提到看电视而只有一次提到读小说。这一结果说明与电视行业相比，出版和书籍销售行业的盈利能力可能会下降。因此，想要以作家为职业的人应该接受为电视而不是为印刷媒体写作的训练和经验。

1) 调查不可信，人们谈论的对象与他们接触的媒体并没有直接的联系。电视所包含的内容与人们的生活比较接近，因此更容易被提及，因而不能由此推出人们平常接触的更多的是电视媒体。
2) 从调查中并不能得出有效的结论，即电视行业的利润在上升，而印刷业的利润在下降，作者并未提供相应的数字。
3) 即使当前的电视业have a promising prospect, 也不代表作家非得receive training for televison. 没有充分的证据表明为这两种媒体写作会有多么大的不同。事实上，很多电视节目的blueprint就是来源于pulishing.

The arguer draws the conclusion that people who seek to pursue their careers as writers should receive more training in writing for television instead of for print media. To bolster his argument, the arguer cites a recent study in which people refer more to television compared with fiction. Additionally, he indicates that the profit in the print media is declining while the television industry is going though increase in making profits. However, further scrutiny reveals that it commits the following logic fallacies.

To begin with, the author fails to establish the relationship between the references in people's daily conversation and what kind of media they usually are attentive to. Though according to the study, people tend to making more references to watching television, it is because the content of television is far more close to people's daily life, making people feel more comfortable and pleased when talking about it. At the same time, what they get from books may be either too deep or too specific in one area. And it cannot lay a common foundation upon which people can communicate with each other both freely and cheerfully. Therefore, lacking more information concerning the media people frequently pay attention to, the author cannot confidently concludes that people are more interesting to watching television than reading books.

Secondly, the author falsely depends on the gratuitous assumption that the publishing and bookselling industries are suffering profit declining in contrast with television industry. However, the study stated in the argument cannot render strong support to this assumption. Neither does the arguer provide additional evidence or data to prove that the television industry is getting increasingly profitable compared with publishing industries. To strengthen his argument, the author should inform the readers about the financial condition, the potential development of both television industry and publishing.

Finally, even assuming the television industry does have a promising prospect, the author assumes without justification that the prospective writers should concentrate on studying writing for television rather for print media. On the one hand, no evidence is available to support that there are so many distinguishing differences between these two kinds of writings that people who plan to work on television should acquire special training in television writing. It is entirely possible that the basic skills are common or even the training received from print media is more creative, thus serving to help the writer perform better in the television industry. On the other hand, in effect, the blueprints of plenty of television programs have resulted from print media. Without clear evidence that one would benefit more by receiving special writing training in television as writers, the arguer cannot convince me that the focus transition is necessary.

In a word, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it the author must provide more information with regard to the media people usually pay attention to. Additionally, he would have to substantiate the assumption that the television industry is making more profits that print media. Besides, he should present more compelling evidence to convince me that people will benefit more by acquiring training in writing for television.

[ 本帖最后由 victordugu 于 2006-7-6 18:20 编辑 ]

veinardUID: 2195006

The arguer draws the conclusion that people who seek to pursue their careers as writers should receive more training in writing for television instead of for print media. To bolster his argument, the arguer cites a recent study in which people referred more to television compared with fiction. Additionally, he indicates that the profit in the print media is declining while the television industry is going though increase in making profits. However, further scrutiny reveals that it commits the following logic fallacies.

To begin with, the author fails to establish the relationship between the references in people's daily conversation and what kind of media they usually are attentive to. Though according to the study, people tend to making more references to watching television, it is because the content of television is far more close to people's daily life, making people feel more comfortable and pleased when talking about it. (At the same time, what they get from books may be either too deep or too specific in one area. And it cannot lay a common foundation upon which people can communicate with each other both freely and cheerfully.) 这点很有道理！Therefore, lacking more information concerning the media people frequently pay attention to, the author cannot confidently concludes that people are more interesting to（in） watching television than reading books.

Secondly, the author falsely depends on the gratuitous assumption that the publishing and bookselling industries are suffering profit declining in contrast with television industry. However(这个转折不顺), the study stated in the argument cannot render strong support to this assumption. Neither does the arguer provide additional evidence or data to prove that the television industry is getting increasingly profitable compared with publishing industries. To strengthen his argument, the author should inform the readers about the financial condition, the potential development of both television industry and publishing.

Finally, even assuming the television industry does have a promising prospect, the author assumes without justification that the prospective writers should concentrate on studying writing for television rather for print media. On (the去掉) one hand, no evidence is available to support that there are so many distinguishing differences between these two kinds of writings that people who plan to work on television should acquire special training in television writing. （其实是有的，我就是学影视文学的）It is entirely possible that the basic skills are common or even the training received from print media is more creative, thus serving to help the writer perform better in the television industry. On the other hand, in effect, the blueprints of plenty of television programs have resulted from print media. Without clear evidence that one would benefit more by receiving special writing training in television as writers, the arguer cannot convince me that the focus transition is necessary.

In a word, the argument is unconvincing as it stands. To strengthen it the author must provide more information with regard to the media people usually pay attention to. Additionally, he would have to substantiate the assumption that the television industry is making more profits that（than） print media. Besides, he should present more compelling evidence to convince me that people will ( benefit 这个词作“收益”时是不及物动词) more by acquiring training in writing for television.

veinard 的感想：这篇A写的很好，思路清晰，词汇也很丰富（这点很突出，是我欠缺的），文笔流畅。只是个别词可能还要再斟酌一下会更好！