argu97[lestou小组11月26日]

komy_leeUID: 2364433

The author, a manager of television station KICK, makes a commendation in this argument that KICK should revise its broadcast schedule to include more sports coverage. To support his conclusion, the author cites the data of a survey and makes an analogy between television station WACK and KICK. However, the argument suffers from some several flaws.

The most important flaw of the argument is that whether the data of the survey is credible is open to doubt. Lacking information about the number of men surveyed and the number of respondents, it is impossible to assess the validity of the results. For example, if the majority of men are surveyed but only a few responded, the conclusion that a sizeable majority of men would like to see additional sports program on television would be highly suspected. Another problem is the representativeness of the respondents. Were they representative of all men? Were men chosen for the survey randomly or did they volunteer for the survey? Lacking such evidence the author cannot draw any firm conclusion based on the survey.

Another flaw undermining the argument is that the author fails to consider and rule out other factors accounting to the increase of the WACK’s audience. The fact that the share of the television audience in its viewing area doubled after television station WACK increased its sports broadcasts does not mean that the former is the result of the latter. It is equally possible that there are other factors contributing to the raise of the audience. For example, maybe people get more leisure time at that time, or other interesting programs also attract more people than before. Without the exact data of the share of television audience of sports broadcasts, it is unfair to conclude that it is sport programs that attract more audience.

Last but not least, the author makes a false analogy between television station WACK and DICK. Even if the increased share of tv audience of WACK is due to the its additional sport broadcasts, it is presumptuous to make a recommendation that DICK should take the same measure. The author fails to consider some possible differences between the two stations, such as their viewing area. There is also possibility that the targets of DICK are children or the old or mostly women who are not interested in sport program. Moreover, the author makes an assumption that the increase of the share of television audience will increase the company profits. However, no evidence is provided to support that it is the case. Without any information about the factors contributing to the company’s profits, we cannot accept the author’s conclusion drawn from the assumption.

In sum, to strengthen the argument, the author has to provide more information about the survey quoted. We will also need more information of the two TV stations and the way in which the profits are calculated.