Argument97 展翅高飞第1次作业

flytotheskyUID：2228362

Argument97
97.The following appeared in a memo from the manager of television station KICK.
"A nationwide survey reveals that a sizeable majority of men would like to see additional sports programs on television. After television station WACK increased its sports broadcasts, its share of the television audience in its viewing area almost doubled. To gain a larger audience share in our area, and thus increase company profits, KICK should also revise its broadcast schedule to include more sports coverage."
一项全国性调查发现，大多数的男性希望在电视上看到更多的体育节目。在WACK电视台增加了体育节目后，在其收视范围内的收视率几乎增加了一倍。为在本地区获得更高收视率，并从而增加公司利润，KICK也应该修改其播出计划来播放更多的体育节目。

提纲：
1。False analogy WACK-KICK
2。Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
3。men - nationwide while audience in our area
4。利润和播出节目的关系

In this argument, the arguer recommends that in order to gain a larger audience share in the area and increase profits, KICK should revise its broadcast schedule to include more sports coverage. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer cites the result of a nationwide survey. Additionally, the arguer refers to the example that the televison station WACK's audience doubled after it increased its sports broadcasts. The argument is unconving for several logic flaws.

First of all, the arguer commits a fallacy of false analogy in assuming that if KICK increase its sports broadcast the audience in viewing area will on the reise as the WACK did. However, no evidence is provided to support the claim. The only similarity between them is merely that they are both television stations. In fact, the viewing area and the programs provided differ obviously. It is perhaps that the share of audience of WACK in its area is low while the share of KICK is on the high and maybe it is difficult to ascend. What is more, the interest of different audiences in different areas that are in television are not much the same. The author's failure to take the above possibity into consideration renders the conclusion based on it highly suspect.

In addition, the arguer simply assume that the action of increasing its sports broadcasts in WACK is the cause of the doubled audience in its viewing area. The only evidence is that the ascent of share occured after the action of WACK, which is unsufficient. For instance, the television station WACK has other broadcasts, such as film, music and news. In addition, imagine that people that people in that area is more likely to see films in the television. Maybe as the sports broadcast increase, the increase in audience is due to that a seried of great films are shown in television.  

Finally, the arguer provide no evidence that men throughout the country whould like to see sports program on television that the audience in the place where KICK is viewed is tend to see it. In common sense, women are more likely to see the music and situation comedy. It is probably that in the area of KICK women are in large portion so that the sports program is not as popular as in the viewing area of WACK. So without investigating the portion of population, the conclusion that is given is too hasty.

In sum, the argument is not well reasoned as it stands. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer have to prove that if KICK increase its sports program the audience will on the rise as the WACK did. Moreover, the arguer must provide the evidence concerning the assumption that the increasing of sports broadcasts in WACK is the cause of the doubled audience in its viewing area.

yogurt4UID：198389

seat taken

可能要等上1-2天,我争取明天帮你看掉
好了我pm你

jallineUID：2192970

提纲：
1。False analogy WACK-KICK
2。Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
3。men - nationwide while audience in our area
4。利润和播出节目的关系

In this argument, the arguer recommends that in order to gain a larger audience share in the area and increase profits, KICK should revise its broadcast schedule to include more sports coverage. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer cites the result of a nationwide survey. Additionally, the arguer refers to the example that the televison station WACK's audience doubled after it increased its sports broadcasts. The argument is unconving for several logic flaws.

First of all, the arguer commits a fallacy of false analogy in assuming that if KICK increases its sports broadcast the audience in viewing area will on the rise as the WACK did. However, no evidence is provided to support the claim. The only similarity between them is merely that they are both television stations. [指同实际却表异的写法值得借鉴]In fact, the viewing area and the programs provided differ obviously. It is perhaps that the share of audience of WACK in its area is low while the share of KICK is on the high and maybe it is difficult to ascend. What is more, the interest  of different audiences in different areas in television that are in television[去掉] are not much the same. The author's failure to take the above possibity->possibilities into consideration renders the conclusion based on it(based on what?如果说是前面的possibilities的话, 意思肯定是不对的.) highly suspect.

In addition, the arguer simply assumes that the action of increasing its sports broadcasts in WACK is the cause of the doubled audience in its viewing area. The only evidence is that the ascent of share occured after the action of WACK, which is unsufficient. For instance, the television station WACK has other broadcasts, such as film, music and news. In addition, imagine that people in that area is more likely to see films in the television. Maybe as the sports broadcast increase, the increase in audience is virtually due to that a series of great films are shown in television at the same time.

Finally, the arguer provides no evidence that men throughout the country would like to see sports program on television that the audience in the place where KICK is viewed is tend to see it[delete]. In common sense, women are more likely to see the music and situation comedy. It is probably that in the area of KICK women are in large portion so that the sports program is not as popular as in the viewing area of WACK. So without investigating the portion of population, the conclusion that is given is too hasty.

In sum, the argument is not well reasoned as it stands. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer have->has to prove that if KICK increases its sports program the audience will on the rise as the WACK did. Moreover, the arguer must provide the evidence concerning the assumption that the increasing of sports broadcasts in WACK is the cause of the doubled audience in its viewing area. [建议按照题目中出现的先后顺序, 把WACK的方面写在前面, KICK的作为Moreover的内容]

语言很流畅, 衔接也很好. 像the conclusion后面跟一个based on it这种错误应该是写argument形成的固定思维而没有注意是否适合, 要加以注意哦

我楼上是HOGUID：2228366

In this argument, the arguer recommends that in order to gain a larger audience share in the area and increase profits, KICK should revise its broadcast schedule to include more sports coverage. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer cites the result of a nationwide survey. Additionally, the arguer refers to the example that the television station WACK's audience doubled after it increased its sports broadcasts. The argument is unconvincing for several logic flaws.

First of all, the arguer commits a fallacy of false analogy in assuming that if KICK increases its sports broadcast the audience in viewing area will on the raise as the WACK did. However, no evidence is provided to support the claim（这里我总看别人把however放在句子中间，这里把它放在evidence和is之间感觉会好点）. The only similarity between them is merely that they are both television stations. In fact, the viewing area and the programs provided differ obviously. It is perhaps that the share of audience of WACK in its area is low while the share of KICK is on the high and maybe it is difficult to ascend. What is more, the interests of different audiences in different areas that are in television are not much (这里把much省掉会不会好点) the same. The author's failure to take the above possibility into consideration renders the conclusion based on it highly suspect (can’t understand what u mean).

In addition, the arguer simply assumed(时态和单复数老出现问题) that the action of increasing its sports broadcasts in WACK is the cause of the doubled audience in its viewing area. The only evidence is that the ascent of share occured（经常出现打字错误啊，这里又是这样） after the action of WACK, which is unsufficient（只有insufficient没有unsuffiencient）. For instance, the television station WACK has other broadcasts, such as film, music and news. In addition, imagine that people that people in that area is more likely to see films in the television. Maybe as the sports broadcast increase, the increase in audience is due to that a seried（又是打字错误） of great films are shown in television.  

Finally, the arguer provide no evidence that men throughout the country whould（同样问题） like to see sports program on television that the audience in the place where KICK is viewed is tend to see it. In common sense, women are more likely to see the music and situation comedy. It is probably that in the area of KICK women are in large portion so that the sports program is not as popular as in the viewing area of WACK. So without investigating the portion of population, the conclusion that is given is too hasty.

In sum, the argument is not well reasoned as it stands. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer have to prove that if KICK increase its sports program the audience will on the rise as the WACK did. Moreover, the arguer must provide the evidence concerning the assumption that the increasing of sports broadcasts in WACK is the cause of the doubled audience in its viewing area

按新东方老师说的，首段和末段来几句发光句会不会好点
论述的理由很好，但出现了好多小错误，虽然评分不太注重，但错得太多毕竟不太好吧

yogurt4UID：198389

Argument97
97.The following appeared in a memo from the manager of television station KICK.
"A nationwide survey reveals that a sizeable majority of men would like to see additional sports programs on television. After television station WACK increased its sports broadcasts, its share of the television audience in its viewing area almost doubled. To gain a larger audience share in our area, and thus increase company profits, KICK should also revise its broadcast schedule to include more sports coverage."
一项全国性调查发现，大多数的男性希望在电视上看到更多的体育节目。在WACK电视台增加了体育节目后，在其收视范围内的收视率几乎增加了一倍。为在本地区获得更高收视率，并从而增加公司利润，KICK也应该修改其播出计划来播放更多的体育节目。

提纲：
1。False analogy WACK-KICK
2。Post hoc, ergo propter hoc用具体并且贴和题目的语言，这种argument专业词汇用silentwings的话来说就是散发着苍白的腐尸气味，写作文的时候不要用。
3。men - nationwide while audience in our area
4。利润和播出节目的关系
1，3可以考虑调换一下位置

In this argument, the arguer recommends that in order to gain a larger audience share in the area and increase profits, KICK should revise its broadcast schedule to include more sports coverage. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer cites the result of a nationwide survey. Additionally, the arguer refers to the example that the televison station WACK's audience doubled after it increased its sports broadcasts. The argument is unconving for several logic flaws.

兰色的字样可以不要，这个问题见我推荐的帖子，节约更多的笔墨写正文。

First of all, the arguer  commits a fallacy of false analogy in assuming宽泛的废话，用到哪个题目里都可以，这种表达要避免，直接simply asserts，直接指出作者的错误就好了。 that if KICK  increase时态！ its sports broadcast the audience in viewing area will on the reise？ as the WACK did. However, no evidence is provided to support the claim.和commits a fallacy of false analogy同样的毛病.你写到这里，一句话First of all, KICK may not necessarily gain a larger audience share as WACK did if it increases sports broadcast 就可以代替了 The only similarity between them is merely that they are both television stations.这个不用写，考官会知道WACK和KICK都是station In fact, the viewing area and the programs provided 注意客观的语气，may differdiffer obviously. It is perhaps that Perhaps the share.. the share of audience of WACK in its area is low while the share of KICK is on the high and maybe it is difficult to ascend  …on the high. If so, it might be difficult for the latter to ascend no matter what schedule changes KICK could make. What is more, the interest of different audiences in different areas that are in television are not much the same. The author's failure to take the above possibity单复数 into consideration renders the conclusion based on it delete highly suspect.

最大的毛病是指出作者错误的语言不够简洁。光是指出错误类比，就写了半段，这样很不好，除去你最后一句再复述错误，能真正反驳的余地就更少了。
后面攻击的力度也不够，不同地区的人看电视的口味不同，到底不同在哪里？Be specific!举例子说明，WACK的middle age男人多一些，喜欢看体育节目，而KICK老年妇女多一些，多体育没兴趣，而是对保健类节目更感兴趣云云。

In addition, the arguer simply assume that the action of increasing its sports broadcasts in WACK is the cause of the doubled audience in its viewing area. The only evidence is that the ascent of share occured after the action of WACK, which is unsufficient. 这里for instance跟在前面不是很连贯。补充一句，有可能是其他举措使观众变多 For instance, maybe the television station WACK has other broadcasts, such as film, music and news broadcasts many good programs other than sports ones,such as…, which
attract more and more audiences. In addition, imagine that people that people in that area is more likely to see films in the television.前面film, music, and news已经是你做的假设了，这里把假设再往前推一步的时候有点罗嗦，直接跟下一句就可以了。 Maybe as the sports broadcast increase, the increase in audience is due to that a seried of great films are shown in television.这一段没有小结，最好像body1那样，末尾的地方换个表达方式再次点名作者的错误

逻辑顺序比较乱。看你上面一段，已经都说了WACK观众变多的原因是sports节目了，你这一段又反过头来攻击观众增多的原因不一定是体育节目。好一点的顺序应该是这样的：WACK收视率上升的原因未必是由于体育节目；即使是体育节目使WACK的观众变多了，KICK播放体育节目未必会有相同的结果。你正好是把顺序反过来写得。


Finally, the arguer provide！ no evidence that men throughout the country whould like to see sports programprograms on television that the audience in the place where KICK is viewed is tend to see it. Finally, the nationwide survey can not convince us that audiences in KICK’s viewing area also would like to see sports programs. In common sense, women are more likely to see the music and situation comedy. It is probably that in the area of KICK women are in large portion so that the sports program is not as popular as in the viewing area of WACK. So without investigating the portion of population, the conclusion that is given is too hasty.

不错。

In sum, the argument is not well reasoned as it stands. To make it logically acceptable, the arguer have ！to prove that if KICK increase its sports program the audience will on the rise as the WACK did. Moreover, the arguer must provide the evidence concerning the assumption that the increasing of sports broadcasts in WACK is the cause of the doubled audience in its viewing area.

三个问题：
1．        开头复述
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=134092

2．        段落之间，也就是攻击错误的逻辑顺序不好。
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... ge=1&highlight=

3．        段落开头罗嗦，模版痕迹有点重。真正论证的文字少了，所以相应来说攻击力度不够。
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... &extra=page%3D1

新手刚开始写argument能犯的毛病差不多都犯全了：）好事，问题早暴露早解决。
这篇很有代表性，以后可以引以为戒了。其实语言也不是很流畅，不过刚开始写，这个问题不大，已经算很赞了。

[ 本帖最后由 yogurt4 于 2006-7-13 20:28 编辑 ]

yogurt4UID：198389

仔细对照我最后给你提的三个问题,弄好了argument就是打字问题了.

还有一点,时态,单复数这样的小错误比较多,注意一下.
见效最快的复习方法就是认真修改自己的习作,修改的时间至少是写作文时间的1.5倍到2倍.
看一楼的习作,好象自己都没有仔细看过的样子~~每次写完读两遍,放一个小时干些别的再回来读一边,很多问题自然而然就出来了.而且写了不改,就没有一个反思的过程,不动脑子的话,再好的习作写出来,放两天也就放忘了,状态也难以保持.
所以,一定要记得修改自己的习作.最好等到别人给你拍了砖就马上总结一下,这比一个劲的写作文更有收获的说.

有一个老id,猫猫624,好象叫这个名字吧.你搜她的帖子,twe4分,aw5分,准备的时间并没有多长,但是她的太多数习作,最后都贴了自己的修改版,想考不好都不行.

恩,废话说了好多,都是我混了这么久的心得~~~~我的要求是非常严格的,特别是一开始,大家都比较懒散,时间就是这么蹉跎过去的啊,哈哈