ARGUMENT97 10G第2次习作 (斑竹推荐优秀习作)

iq28UID: 2152875

加油
重复修改重写某篇习作确实水平提高很快的

ILOVEISSUEUID: 2300195

不要被标题欺骗了
这可是高人mj;d:

DesVioletUID: 2343894

In this argument, the arguer suggests the television station KICK should revise its broadcast schedule to include more sports coverage to gain a larger audience share in its area and thus increase company profits, based on the result of a nationwide survey on men’s preference in programs and the successful example of WACK. 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 assumption that sports programs would be popular among people in KICK’s viewing area. Such a survey that covers the whole country is inevitably invalid when concerning any specific areas, due to the varies differences in taste among people from different areas, thus the sports additional might not be attractive to men in KICK’s viewing area (看完使徒版那个句子偶忍不住拍桌子叫了一声赞.. 把头上的mm吵醒了.. |||). 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 (觉得这里不用限定.. 前面也只是说for instance women and children, 毕竟还可以有其他群体). 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. (没有使徒斑的打字效率.. 就不再补充其他攻击点了.. )
这一段是攻击调查中的两个点, 全国&男人..

On the other hand, the cited example stating increasing sports broadcast leads to increase in audience share in WACK is ungrounded, in that such concurrence does not necessarily indicate a causal relationship between the two (赞句式...). Given that WACK has made such changes in sports portion, it is highly possible that they also made new plans in other programs and strategies. The arguer thus 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 conditions of KICK and WACK: their original audiences could be very different. The station might lose its own style in switching to a new program, and hence the original audiences appreciating it, but still have difficult attracting new ones. Then before careful investigation into the history and original audience groups of the two companies, it would be rather hasty for KICK to adopt WACK’s changes in the program . (恩, 这段改动之后就没什么好写的了...写的时候也在考虑到和第一段重复, 硬凑的几句话. 不过真要限时写我也写不到4bodies.. |||)

(这个让步和body2关系不是很直接.. 加上我觉得body2够长了.. = =||| 所以单列一段) 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, for the reason that abandoning the established sources and creating new ones would probably result in an increase in cost, at least in a short term. (分号前后同义解释/重复.. 写的时候想都没想.. |||) 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 they have at the moment while still needing time to persuade new ones. Given that the income from advertisement usually makes up a large part of a station’s profit, the increased audience share may not be able to cover the lose, rendering the arguer’s conclusion that profits would boost 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.

Thanks to SK and Lastangel again

[ 本帖最后由 DesViolet 于 2007-6-17 01:25 编辑 ]

coraoneUID: 2233021

学习一下

bobo19890313UID: 2622130

牛人们~~！