argument97 [OB小组]

phillipsareaUID: 2318537

题目：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."
字数：420          用时：00:34:17          日期：2007-8-18 下午 01:35:40
---------------------
The manager of television station KICK argues that in order to gain a larger audience share in their area and increase company profits, KICK should learn from television station WACK to increase its sports broadcasts since after the that, audience in its viewing area almost doubled. However, the manager's argument is weak because it ignores some crucial facets - it only acknowledges an correlation, instead of a causation, and it also doesn't address the difference among audience between KICK and WACK.

Firstly, correlation is not the same thing as causation. Just because two things are happening at the same time doesn't mean that one thing caused the other. For example, it's cold today and I am sick at home, doesn't mean that the cold weather causes my sickness. Thus, just because WACK increased its sports broadcasts and the audience in its viewing area almost doubled, doesn't mean that the increase of sports broadcasts caused the increasing audience in its area. The manager neglects some additional variables that could have affected the relationship between the causes. For instance, perhaps when WACK increased its sports broadcasts, it happens to be an important sports game at the same time, say the NBA Finals or World Champion Boxing game. Therefore, it's possible that people will pay more attention to sports at this time which causes the audience in WACK's viewing area doubled.

Even if there's a causation in WACK, it doesn't mean that a similar causation will arise in KICK. Since WACK has already increased its sports broadcasts, which satisfied people's need to see additional sports. It's possible that if KICK starts to increase its sports broadcasts, people will still watch such programmes in WACK, since there's no reasons why they would watch a newly opened programmes instead of their familiar ones. Besides, to increase sports broadcasts also means KICK should invest more on copyrights from sports associations. Perhaps with the fierce competition between different TV stations, profits are less than ever and KICK will get involved in the endless competition, which makes KICK suffer from a long term financial crisis.

In conclusion, the argument lacks of credibility. The manager has overlooked or chosen to ignore some vital variables and important additional information. To strengthen the argument, the manager should consider how much the sports broadcasts causes the increasing audience in its viewing area and taking into consideration that whether opening some other kinds of programmes to avoid competing with other TV stations in sports area is a better way to increase company profits.

[ 本帖最后由 phillipsarea 于 2007-8-18 22:50 编辑 ]