argument220

hejingCET4UID：2308496

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: 381          TIME: 0:30:00          DATE: 2007-3-20

The arguer makes a conclusion that writers should acquire training and experience in writing for television rather than for print media. This conclusion is based on a recent study that people's conversation references 23 times television and 1 time fiction. As discussing below, the argument suffers from several flaws and therefore is unpersuasive.

  

From the first place, the arguer fails to consider about the characters of television and fiction. As the television programs is newest and broadest, such as the new-reports, which includes the controversy or issue that easy for people to discuss in their daily life. Moreover the television's vivid pictures and sound is more attractive than the fiction for people. But this just means that people used to pay more attention on the programs of television, rather than they would like to ignore the pleasure of reading fiction. The arguer claims that people prefer television to fiction is based on empirical evidence.

From the second place, there is no evidence suggesting that the publishing and bookselling industries will decline in profitability, compared with the television industry. Unless the argument can provide the evidences that, such as , the quantity of the sell-out books has decreased in sharp, or the complains of the readers are much more than before, it seems unwarranted to conclude that the former will decline in profitability. Further, even if the former will decline in the economical depression or some other situations, it is entire possible that the latter will decline as the same or even worse than the former. So without considering about these alternative factors, the conclusion is not persuasive as it stands

Last but not the least, the arguer treats fiction as print media. Granted that people prefer watching TV to reading fiction, it is not equal to people like the biography, another kind book of print media, more than television programs. The arguer fails to rule out the other kinds of print media besides the fiction, thus it is not strong enough to support the conclusion.

In sum, any decision aimed at addressing the problem of writers should acquire training and experience in writing for television rather than for print media must be based on more thorough investigation to gather sufficient dada to narrow down the actual causes of the problem.

iq28UID：2152875

The arguer makes a conclusion that writers should acquire training and experience in writing for television rather than for print media. This conclusion is based on a recent study that people's conversation references 23 times television and 1 time fiction. As discussing below, the argument suffers from several flaws and therefore is unpersuasive. (yes.这么长的开头正好.给出结论,给出最基本的论证依据就已经非常足够了)

From the first place, the arguer fails to consider about the characters of television and fiction. (没有考虑到电视和小说的特性?这段你想攻击什么呢?明确写出讨论多少不代表是否真正看得多少.这个才是ts.你写的只能算是错误的原因,而且写的还很晦涩,跟下面的关联也不大) As the television programs is newest and broadest, such as the new-reports, which includes the controversy or issue that easy for people to discuss in their daily life. (这一段怎么都在说电视好?看到这觉得很危险,你似乎要支持作者原文观念了) Moreover the television's vivid pictures and sound is more attractive than the fiction for people. But this just means that people used to pay more attention on the programs of television, rather than they would like to ignore the pleasure of reading fiction. (这段攻击失败.紫色字的部分看上去直接就是在支持作者观念了.明白你的意思,你是要说虽然人们谈论电视多但不代表人们就不关注书籍了.不过你前面说了那么多电视怎么怎么吸引人,最后忽然来一句rather than.....让人看了觉得非常没有说服力.不用那么仁慈,直接反驳说人们讨论了电视,不代表人们就看了电视) The arguer claims that people prefer television to fiction is based on empirical evidence.

From the second place, there is no evidence suggesting that the publishing and bookselling industries will decline in profitability, compared with the television industry. Unless the argument can provide the evidences that, such as , the quantity of the sell-out books has decreased in sharp, or the complains of the readers are much more than before, it seems unwarranted to conclude that the former will decline in profitability. (yes,这一段写得很bingo.但是最好在这些实例前面加上批驳文章的论据的话,承认即使现在电视看得人比较多,也不能说明问题.) Further, even if the former will decline in the economical depression or some other situations, it is entire possible that the latter will decline as the same or even worse than the former. (这一个让步毫无意义.文章只是提到书利润下降,我们反驳之即可.没有任何的蛛丝马迹说到电视行业会利润下降.你这里每根据地来一个就算书的利润因为整个经济的萎缩而下降,那么电视也不会有好果子吃,看了非常唐突.怎么忽然说到两个要下降一起下降呢??) So without considering about these alternative factors, the conclusion is not persuasive as it stands

Last but not the least, the arguer treats fiction as print media. (同第一段ts.看了之后不知道你要攻击什么.我们不是为了攻击一个个单独的错误而攻击它们,而是为了攻击作者的推理结果而列举出他中间所犯的错误) Granted that people prefer watching TV to reading fiction, it is not equal to people like the biography, (材料里面哪里提到这个词了??看了后面明白你是想举例说明别的书,那你前面也要加上other kinds of books作为总领啊?否则直接看到传记会很晕的) another kind book of print media, more than television programs. The arguer fails to rule out the other kinds of print media besides the fiction, thus it is not strong enough to support the conclusion. (单薄了一点.别的倒还好)

In sum, any decision aimed at addressing the problem of writers should acquire training and experience in writing for television rather than for print media must be based on more thorough investigation to gather sufficient dada to narrow down the actual causes of the problem.

加油吧

可能是你刚刚开始限时写的比较慌乱

继续努力

hejingCET4UID：2308496

今天考完了,
想起来还有作文没有修改,实在是过意不去.回来再改!!

特别谢谢QQ BZ. 每一篇都改的很认真， 有点象驳斥 argument 的感觉．
当然啦，面对这么严厉和认真的斑竹，作为板油的我们还有什么怠慢的理由呢
很幸运的一休和阿狗　都被改过．只是质量不高，基本上是面目全非了吧．给后面的做反面教材不错．　
　希望后面的板油们加油．

hejingCET4UID：2308496

额，　现在要出去一下．我保证晚上回来一定完成

hejingCET4UID：2308496

原帖由 iq28 于 2007-3-24 00:50 发表
(yes.这么长的开头正好.给出结论,给出最基本的论证依据就已经非常足够了)

开始的时候我是写很长的开头,先给出结论,再详细的列出1,2,3 的论证依据.主要是觉得这样写,自己的逻辑思路在开头就容易理得清楚一些,但是发现这样会浪费好些时间在开头,导致中间的论证时间不足. 同时看了一些关于 前几大虾的对于开头问题的分析, 所以后来精简 成这样的结构.
希望能对后面的 板油写开头 有些帮助 吧.

As the television programs is newest and broadest, such as the new-reports, which includes the controversy or issue that easy for people to discuss in their daily life. (这一段怎么都在说电视好?看到这觉得很危险,你似乎要支持作者原文观念了)

是作为　让步　来陈述的，　所以在前面列举它的优点．　看来应该是我的关联词　错误，该以although 开头！


其他的不严谨的论证，谢谢ＱＱＢＺ的指点

呵呵，现在回头再来看，感觉比之前要清晰很多，可能是心理上没有那么多压力了吧，可以静下来理清楚头绪．
祝福后面的　Ｇ友！
同时谢谢ＱＱ～～　笔考ＲＰ大发！！！