Argument220 （12月作文高强组——好好学习，天天作文）

一月一号UID: 2148376

1.       调查本身与结论没有任何关系。人们谈论次数多少与受欢迎程度没有关系。
2.       调查本身也不全面，没有提供样本数量和质量





TOPIC: ARGUMENT220 - 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."
WORDS: 425          TIME: 0:48:34          DATE: 2006-11-24

  The arguer above asserts that the publishing and bookselling industries are likely to decline and thus suggests writers who wish to have careers should acquire training and experience in writing for television than print media. The reason for the author's statement is a recent survey which 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.  However, a simple analysis would reveal its several logic fallacies.

  The threshold fallacy of this argument is that the survey does not have the direct casual relationship with the profitability of the television and publishing or bookselling. As we know, the television often report what that has more relationship with people's daily life, like weather report, society news, which is, of course, referenced more by residents. Those issues reported on the television are often the common and daily topic of people's conversation. On the other hand, reading fiction is a more private behavior than watching TV. Different people have different taste of reading material and thus people and thus less reference exist. For example, we can hardly expect everybody favors the scientific fiction and people who like them talked about the future of the universe everyday. Therefore, the conclusion of the author based on the survey is groundless.

  Second, the arguer commits a fallacy of ignoring the quantity and quality of the survey. Even if the survey can demonstrate the how popular one kind of media is, the only survey of the reference of the fiction is not comprehensive.  As we know, the publishing and the bookselling is not just composed by the fiction, and there are other kinds of publications, like textbook, poems and autobiography. Thus, there is no guarantee that the publishing and bookselling industries are likely to decline in profitability just by a survey of the reference of the fiction.  Further, the arguer fails to provide the quantity of the survey sample and what kind of person taking part in this survey. It is likely that the survey is conducted among people at 60-70, who spent more would time on watching television. Therefore, without providing those in formations above, the survey is not convincing.

  To conclude, the argument above commits several logic flaws: false analysis of casual relationship and ignoring the quantity and quality of the survey sample. To convince us her/his recommendation, she/he should provide more information and the casualty relationship of the survey and the conclusion.

扁舟子001UID: 204048

The arguer above asserts that the publishing and bookselling industries are likely to decline and thus suggests writers who wish to have careers should acquire training and experience in writing for television than print media. The reason for the author's statement is a recent survey which 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. However, a simple analysis would reveal its several logic fallacies.

  The threshold fallacy of this argument is that the survey does not have the direct casual relationship with the profitability of the television and publishing or bookselling. As we know, the television often report what that（为什么要what?） has more relationship with people's daily life, like weather report, society news, which is, of course, referenced more by residents. Those issues reported on the television are often the common and daily topic of people's conversation. On the other hand, reading fiction is a more private behavior than watching TV.(有道理，公共话题主要由电视提供) Different people have different taste of reading material and thus people and thus（用了两个thus） less reference exist. For example, we can hardly expect everybody favors the scientific fiction and people who like them talked about the future of the universe everyday（universe everyday是什么？）. Therefore, the conclusion of the author based on the survey is groundless.

  Second, the arguer commits a fallacy of ignoring the quantity（我觉得一般不用数量来表示，而是用问题的代表性来表示） and quality of the survey. Even if the survey can demonstrate the（the 是多余的） how popular one kind of media is, the only survey of the reference of the fiction is not comprehensive.  As we know, the publishing and the bookselling is not just composed by the fiction, and there are other kinds of publications, like textbook, poems and autobiography. Thus, there is no guarantee that the publishing and bookselling industries are likely to decline in profitability just by a survey of the reference of the fiction.  Further, the arguer fails to provide the quantity of the survey sample and what kind of person taking（这个是用ing形式吗？） part in this survey. It is likely that the survey is conducted among people at 60-70, who spent more would（would time？） time on watching television. Therefore, without providing those informations above, the survey is not convincing.

  To conclude, the argument above commits several logic flaws: false analysis of casual relationship and ignoring the quantity and quality of the survey sample. To convince us her/his recommendation, she/he should provide more information and the casualty relationship of the survey and the conclusion.

总体感觉不错。思路也很清楚。