argument153

cwztyo__UID: 2159050

153电视
提纲：
1、        暴力电视节目的上映与十多岁儿童犯罪率之间不一定有必然的因果关系
2、        即使有因果关系, 所采取在黄金时段减少暴力节目的措施不定有效
3、        全国的家长所反映的情况不能代表Alta的情况

In the Midvale Observer, the local newspaper of Alta, this argument about violence shown, by an editorial, indicates that television programmers should decrease the amount of violence shown during prime time to control the ratio of teenage crime in Alta. To substantiate this conclusion, based on several investigates, the editorial assumes the violence shown leads the increase of teenage crime and offers a suggestion to abbreviate the phenomenon. Nevertheless, it exits three obvious logical flaws, rendering the argument unconvincing as it stands.

At the beginning, it seems like that there is a cause-effect relation between the violence shown and teenage crime. But the study only shows the time coincidence of happening of the two events. Common sense tells us that even if two things occur at the same time, maybe there is nothing business of them. Perhaps the ascending trend of the teenage crimes reasons from the moral or income standards of their parents who ignore the education of kids. Perhaps in Alta, the whole area is filled with the violence and crimes, which influences the behaviors of the children more or less. On the other hand, the level of influence of watching TV is mainly decided by individual hobbies or abilities of forbear. Someone who is interested in cartoon will naturally leave violence channels while some kids who are curious about violence will stay at the violent screen all day, which indicates whether or not are influenced by violence shows is quietly different from different persons. Hence, if the editorial fails to bolster a cause-effect relationship with abundant instances or detailed process of reasoning, I cannot uphold his conclusion.

At the second, even if it is the violence shown on the television that directly generates the rising of teenage crime, the manner he supplies is not surely effective. Teenage who indulge in violence programs, don’t care what the exact time of violence shown on television and understand violent details with other manners. For example, kids could watch violence channels while parents are out of home at non-prime time. Maybe instead of watching TV, children read sorts of violent books or magazines and dissemble those books’ behaviors. In a word, reducing the amount of violence during prime time is perhaps one respect of preventing teenage crimes, which renders it non-effective, so the editorial should consider other aspects of channels to get close to violence.

Thirdly, as far as I am concerned, the materials offered by the editorials are not very representative here, because the data of national studies in the newspaper cannot surely reflect the situation of one spot in the state, such like Alta. Maybe the fact in the national study accords most provinces in the country, except several villages including Alta.  

To sum up, the editorial's argument is unconvincing. To bolster it, he must provide clear evidences that redeem the defects of logical flaw above and I will uphold the editorial’s conclusion in the Midvale Observer.