ARGUMENT97 10G第2次习作 (斑竹推荐优秀习作)

DesVioletUID: 2343894

TOPIC: ARGUMENT97 - 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."
WORDS: 650          TIME: 1:02:30          DATE: 2007-6-15

In this argument, the arguer suggests KICK, a television station, should revise its broadcast schedule to include more sports coverage to gain a larger audience share in its area, and thus increase company profits. Well-grounded reasoning it may seem, however, close scrutiny reveals that the argument suffers from several fallacies, and is therefore unconvincing.

To begin with, the nationwide survey that suggests men’s preference to additional sports programs lends no strong support to the arguer’s conclusion. The author fails to take into account the varies differences in taste among people from different areas, such that the sports additional might not be attractive to men in KICK’s viewing area. Moreover, the result of the survey tells nothing about the preference of other groups, for instance. women and children, both of which would probably be in favor of programs other than sports. Therefore, to choose to increase the sports portion, which might lead to considerable decrease in broadcast of other programs like melodrama and comics, is to risk losing other, and perhaps larger, groups of audiences. Unless the arguer can prove that the overall opinion of the audiences in KICK’s viewing area agrees with the survey, the conclusion based upon it is open to doubt.

The cited example of WACK does not well support the arguer’s assumption that increasing sports broadcast would lead to any increase in audience share either: concurrence does not necessarily indicate a causal relationship between the two. The arguer fails to rule out other factors that might have caused the doubled share of WACK, for example, advanced advertising strategy toward the public that makes the station known to more, or program changes other than the sports additional. Perhaps WACK has introduced some newly shot series that are shown exclusively in the station, or perhaps other all-time favorite programs like news and talk shows attracted people’s eyes. Either of the above scenarios, if true, can serve to undermine the arguer’s conclusion.   

Even if it was the increased sports broadcasts of WACK that boost its audience share, it is false analogous to conclude that KICK will also gain larger audience share by taking the same strategy. The arguer provides no information concerning the similarities or differences between KICK and WACK: their audiences in the viewing area, their own style and history, etc. It is entirely possible that WACK locates in an area where sports as a history is popular, thus there is no wondering that increased sports broadcast would lead to increased audience share, whereas that in KICK’s viewing area were completely different. Then before careful investigation into the public’s preference in KICK’s viewing area, it would be rather hasty to adopt any changes in the program.

Even assuming that KICK would gain a larger audience share by increasing sports broadcast, the arguer’s conclusion that its profits will increase as well is open to doubt. One the one hand, the arguer fails to take into account the effort in carrying out the change, and in making new sports programs; abandoning the established sources and creating new ones would probably result in an increase in cost, at least in a short term. On the other hand, as the program changes, companies who make advertisement in KICK might reconsider their plans because the group of audience would also change. In this way the new sports-central broadcast might scare away large portions of advertise income, which actually makes up a large part of the station’s profit. Therefore, the conclusion that profits would increase is ungrounded.

To sum up, the argument is groundless because of its unconvincing evidence and false analogy. To give more credibility to the conclusion, the arguer needs to provide more information to validate the causal relationship between increased sports programs and WACK's audience boost and the comparability of KICK and WACK. The arguer also should provide evidence to show that if KICK gains larger audience share, its profits will increase.

没有限时，所以body写了4段。
Body3和Body1有些重了，都是讲地区性差别的问题。
留链一定回拍。^_^

发现标题有点惊悚了.. |||
这只是准备10G中的第2篇... 6G之前写过不下10篇ARGU.. 汗
Anyway, 新的开始～加油～

[ 本帖最后由 DesViolet 于 2007-6-16 18:38 编辑 ]

futuremanUID: 2327059

ARGU都这么长:eek:

speaklessUID: 2205899

首先学习学习精神..- -我还没开始恢复...
PS:怎么不写写I?

DesVioletUID: 2343894

因为写不好.. 所以不想写 = =||
等组长布置任务再开动..

speaklessUID: 2205899

:) 让我继续堕落几天吧...恩.把这篇改一改,作为新的开始

iq28UID: 2152875

这个新手太牛了
argument第二篇就能650字 牛啊;d:

DemoUID: 2331967

我决定帮LZ狠狠地BS一下光水人家帖子不改人家作文的人 :o

ILOVEISSUEUID: 2300195

飘

AccordUID: 2348486

同BS

pippo1983UID: 172110

就知道会是水贴

speaklessUID: 2205899

呵呵,在你的号召下...人人都会发挥2000%水属性的...

speaklessUID: 2205899

TOPIC: ARGUMENT97 - 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."
WORDS: 650          TIME: 1:02:30          DATE: 2007-6-15

In this argument, the arguer suggests KICK, a television station, should revise its broadcast schedule to include more sports coverage to gain a larger audience share in its area, and thus increase company profits. Well-grounded reasoning it may seem, however, close scrutiny reveals that the argument suffers from several fallacies, and is therefore unconvincing.
标准开头没啥说的

To begin with, the nationwide survey that suggests men’s preference to additional sports programs lends no strong support to the arguer’s conclusion(what conclusion?一般文章会有很多conclusions有的是整体上的,那么明显放在这里就说不太合适,太概括了,如果是小的,最好点出来,可以让你的攻击更有针对). The author fails to take into account the varies differences in taste among people from different areas, such that the sports additional might not be attractive to men in KICK’s viewing area(这是在做比较吧,难道你第一段就想说明WACK的结论不能放到KICK?继续看,这一点没有伸张,如果MEN没有ATTRACTIVE那么会怎么样,继续把结果说全了,比如说KICK即使增加了SPORTS也不会咋样之类的). Moreover, the result of the survey tells nothing about the preference of other groups, for instance. women and children, both of which would probably be in favor of programs other than sports(应该提及比例,其他组占总人数的比例?). Therefore, to choose to increase the sports portion, which might lead to considerable decrease in broadcast of other programs like melodrama and comics, is to risk losing other, and perhaps larger, groups of audiences(加以限定,这些audience属于women and children). Unless the arguer can prove that the overall opinion of the audiences in KICK’s viewing area agrees with the survey, the conclusion based upon it is open to doubt.
攻击W的SURVEY不能直接证明K

The cited example of WACK does not well support the arguer’s assumption that increasing sports broadcast would lead to any increase in audience share neither: concurrence does not necessarily indicate a causal relationship between the two. The arguer fails to rule out other factors that might have caused the doubled share of WACK(直接说还有其他原因感觉唐突了些,你可以先从正面说这个问题是), for example, advanced advertising strategy toward the public that makes the station known to more, or program changes other than the sports additional. Perhaps WACK has introduced some newly shot series that are shown exclusively in the station, or perhaps other all-time favorite programs like news and talk shows attracted people’s eyes(这个细节写得不错). Either of the above scenarios, if true, can serve to undermine the arguer’s conclusion.   
攻击体育受欢迎不意味着导致了观众收视率高

Even if it was the increased sports broadcasts of WACK that boost its audience share, it is false analogous to conclude that KICK will also gain larger audience share by taking the same strategy. The arguer provides no information concerning the similarities or differences between KICK and WACK: their audiences in the viewing area, their own style and history, etc. It is entirely possible that WACK locates in an area where sports as a history is popular, thus there is no wondering that increased sports broadcast would lead to increased audience share, whereas that in KICK’s viewing area were completely different. Then before careful investigation into the public’s preference in KICK’s viewing area, it would be rather hasty to adopt any changes in the program.
(和第一段内容有冲突)

Even assuming that KICK would gain a larger audience share by increasing sports broadcast, (既然是对第二段的让步,为什么不放在一起?)the arguer’s conclusion that its profits will increase as well is open to doubt. One the one hand, the arguer fails to take into account the effort in carrying out the change, and in making new sports programs; abandoning the established sources and creating new ones would probably result in an increase in cost, at least in a short term. (话没说完,做句总结:短期可能利润会下降)On the other hand, as the program changes, companies who make advertisement in KICK might reconsider their plans because the group of audience would also change. In this way the new sports-central broadcast might scare away large portions of advertise income, which actually makes up a large part of the station’s profit. (恩,这点不错,可以深挖一下)Therefore, the conclusion that profits would increase is ungrounded.
攻击观众收视率高不代表利润增加

To sum up, the argument is groundless because of its unconvincing evidence and false analogy. To give more credibility to the conclusion, the arguer needs to provide more information to validate the causal relationship between increased sports programs and WACK's audience boost and the comparability of KICK and WACK. The arguer also should provide evidence to show that if KICK gains larger audience share, its profits will increase.

总体不错了,攻击点比较丰富,细节也有注意,层次还可以
只是感觉总体的逻辑比较混乱,有些话没有说全...
从字数看完全可以压缩修改成一篇5+的文章
至于这篇分数...我只有说:I DON'T KNOW

PS:水一下~NEW BEGINNING~!~

最後の使徒UID: 2257608

TOPIC: ARGUMENT97 - 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."
WORDS: 650          TIME: 1:02:30          DATE: 2007-6-15

In this argument, the arguer suggests KICK, a television station, should revise its broadcast schedule to include more sports coverage to gain a larger audience share in its area, and thus increase company profits. Well-grounded reasoning it may seem, however, close scrutiny reveals that the argument suffers from several fallacies, and is therefore unconvincing. (如果不是为了重复题目理出题目中的顺序的话, 首段第二句就够了. 如果一定要重复作者意思的话, 可以把另外两个论据用很简短的短语概括下放进去)

To begin with, the nationwide survey that suggests men’s preference to additional sports programs lends no strong support to the arguer’s conclusion.(what conclusion? 第一段说的作者是suggestion,而这个conclusion会给人感觉是说体育节目会收欢迎, 但这个作者也没直接点明, 因此这里不妨把conclusion用更加specific的方式表达出来) The author fails to take into account the varies differences in taste among people from different areas, such that the sports additional might not be attractive to men in KICK’s viewing area.(这句话显得现有头, 直接就上来套the author fails to take...., 跟前面一句的连接并不紧密, 第一句话的主语是nationwide survey, 这里可以选跟它对应更好的句子结构: Such a survey cover the whole country is inevitably invalid when concerning....due to....) Moreover, the result of the survey tells nothing about the preference of other groups, for instance. women and children, both of which would probably be in favor of programs other than sports.Therefore, to choose to increase the sports portion, which might lead to considerable decrease in broadcast of other programs like melodrama and comics(popular by children), is to risk losing other, and perhaps larger, groups of audiences.(对于这个SURVEY还有些比的攻击点, 比如说喜欢也不代表会去看, 没有时间工作忙等等) Unless the arguer can prove that the overall opinion of the audiences in KICK’s viewing area agrees with the survey, the conclusion based upon it is open to doubt.

The cited example of WACK does not well support the arguer’s assumption that increasing sports broadcast would lead to any increase in audience share either: concurrence does not necessarily indicate a causal relationship between the two.(这句话的表达不够清楚, EXAMPLE要证明是什么? 是W的改变带来了观众增加还是这种增加具有普适性? 是example 不能well support还是它本身就有问题? concurrence是什么? causal relationship又是什么? 总之这句话还需要推敲一下, 给个参考 On the other hand, the cited example stating increasing sports broacast leads to increase in audience share in WACK is ungrounded and thus useless: such concurrence does not...) The arguer fails to rule out other factors that might have caused the doubled share of WACK, for example, advanced advertising strategy toward the public that makes the station known to more, or program changes other than the sports additional. Perhaps WACK has introduced some newly shot series that are shown exclusively in the station, or perhaps other all-time favorite programs like news and talk shows attracted people’s eyes.(这里直接列举它因显得论据不足, 在此之前不妨先说明我们如此的怀疑的理由, 比如考虑到WACK的节目变动, 我们完全有理由相信他们所进行的是一次规模比较大的节目调整, 因此有很多其它的原因可能存在, 而不单单是增加体育节目带来了观众的增加) Either of the above scenarios, if true, can serve to undermine the arguer’s conclusion.   

Even if it was the increased sports broadcasts of WACK that boost its audience share, it is false analogous to conclude that KICK will also gain larger audience share by taking the same strategy. The arguer provides no information concerning the similarities or differences between KICK and WACK: their audiences in the viewing area, their own style and history, etc. It is entirely possible that WACK locates in an area where sports as a history is popular, thus there is no wondering that increased sports broadcast would lead to increased audience share, whereas that in KICK’s viewing area were completely different.(说area不如说original audience, 如speakless所说, 这里如果说area就跟第一段重复了.)(So what is the bad result? 改节目不但可能失去传统观众, 还会无法吸引新的观众而使得结果适得其反) Then before careful investigation into the public’s preference in KICK’s viewing area, it would be rather hasty to adopt any changes in the program.

Even assuming that KICK would gain a larger audience share by increasing sports broadcast, the arguer’s conclusion that its profits will increase as well is open to doubt. One the one hand, the arguer fails to take into account the effort in carrying out the change, and in making new sports programs; abandoning the established sources and creating new ones would probably result in an increase in cost, at least in a short term.(感觉分号前后的话在说同一个意思, 你不是在出填空题, 没必要重复. 另外还是恶劣后果没说, 比如增加的观众不能cover这些成本. ) On the other hand, as the program changes, companies who make advertisement in KICK might reconsider their plans because the group of audience would also change. In this way the new sports-central broadcast might scare away large portions of advertise income, which actually makes up a large part of the station’s profit(这个分析比较难, 因为别人也有理由置疑说观众增加了还怕别的公司不来么, 这样需要适当说明转型的时候投放广告的公司产生的疑虑, 以及它们对新节目的不信任, 产生的短期的投资空缺, 造成资金周转问题, 等等). Therefore, the conclusion that profits would increase is ungrounded.

To sum up, the argument is groundless because of its unconvincing evidence and false analogy. To give more credibility to the conclusion, the arguer needs to provide more information to validate the causal relationship between increased sports programs and WACK's audience boost and the comparability of KICK and WACK. The arguer also should provide evidence to show that if KICK gains larger audience share, its profits will increase.

总评：总体来说是一篇结构严谨论证充分的ARGUMENT, 细节论证上存在着攻击深度不够的问题, 但并不影响全文达到5分以上的水准. 当然要是限时能写出这样的文章就完美了
本日推荐

laura001UID: 2295927

第2次就写这样,真的不错

DesVioletUID: 2343894

谢谢SK同学
谢谢使徒斑竹
评价很高哦～哈哈～
... 觉得心理阴影减少了不少 :loveliness:

P.S.
昨天看完SK的点评 懒了一下下没有马上改.. 不好意思.. |||
现在去修改了～