Argument220 Spring-第6次作业

lifeng_913UID: 2397925

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: 733          TIME: 01:00:45          DATE: 2007-12-1 13:30:29
The article cites a recent study showing that while an average of 23 people references to watching television, only one references to reading fiction. Based on the statistics, the author points out that comparing with the television industry, the publishing and bookselling industries are likely to decline in profitability. Then the author concludes that people seeking careers in writing should acquire training and experience in television and writing. This argument depends on several unsubstantiated assumptions and is therefore unpersuasive as it stands.
    First, the author's reasons that the publishing and bookselling industries are likely to decline in profitability build upon the assumption that the study, which the argument depends, is statistically reliable. Yet, the author offers no evidence to substantiate this assumption. In order to establish a strong correlation between the probability of preferring watching television to reading fiction and the decline of publishing and bookselling industries in profitability, the study's sample must be sufficient in size and representative of the overall population. The author also should provide the details of the residents, such as age, sex, profession, etc, which are crucial to determine whether this study's conclusion can represent the overall view of residents. It is entirely possible that people inclined to watch television and like to discuss what they had seen were more willing to respond the survey that other people were. Thus, lacking evidence of a sufficiently representative sample, the author cannot justifiably rely on the study to draw any conclusion whatever.
    Secondly, even if the study's conclusion that daily's conversations are more likely reference to watching television than to reading fiction, the author cannot unfairly assume that there is an cause and effect relationship between people's more frequently talking about TV shows and publishing and bookselling industries are more likely to decline in profitability. As we know, the television program includes a large range, such as news, comments, issues about some hotspots and some programs for amusement, which could not be written by writers. At the same time, for the author provides no evidence that people who are less likely to talk about fiction would have a lower desire to buy fiction, and the television industry would gain any profits from those people who mention TV show more frequently. It is entirely possibly that people regard TV show as a common topic to keep the conversation going on, actually, and prefer reading fiction to watching television. In brief, the author cannot simply equal less reading fiction to less selling fiction, let alone equal fiction to all sorts of books. Logic and common sense inform me that the study's results excluded any statistic about non-fiction book. It is entirely possible that these non-fiction books will well constitute book-publishing industry's main profit source. If that is the case, the author cannot convince me that writers should follow his/her recommendation to acquire the career.
    Moreover, even if publishing and bookselling industries are likely to decline in profitability, the author provides no evidence that such situation will last a long span of time. Since the argument provides no evidence that the decline of publishing and bookselling industries will continue for a long time and the television industry will thrive forever, the author cannot convince me that to be a writer specialized in writing for television.
    Finally, even if the study cited as evidence in the argument is statistically reliable and sufficient to justify the arguer's recommendation; at the same time, even assuming that the result of the study lends sufficiently to support the arguer's claim that the publishing and bookselling industries are likely to decline in profitability, the author's implicit claim that seeking a career as a television writer is more profitability than being a writer for print media is still unwarranted. It is entirely possible that the television writers are paid reasonably low wages, which can be known that the television industry is one of the industries of obtaining substantive profits. Without sufficient evidence that television writers are paid better than book writers, the author's recommendation is still unconvincing.
    To sum up, the author cannot justify his or her voting recommendation based on the evidence provided in the article. To bolster the recommendation the author must provide better information about how the survey comes out, the relationship between references times and profits, and so on. The author must also provide some details of the respondents, which renders the study more convincing.

cinda2020UID: 2371432

The article cites a recent study showing that while an average of 23 people references to watching television, only one references to reading fiction. Based on the statistics, the author points out that comparing with the television industry, the publishing and bookselling industries are likely to decline in profitability. Then the author concludes that people seeking careers in writing should acquire training and experience in television and writing. This argument depends on several unsubstantiated assumptions and is therefore unpersuasive as it stands.
    First, the author's reasons that the publishing and bookselling industries are likely to decline in profitability build upon the assumption that the study, which the argument depends, is statistically reliable. Yet, the author offers no evidence to substantiate this assumption. In order to establish a strong correlation between the probability of preferring watching television to reading fiction and the decline of publishing and bookselling industries in profitability, the study's sample must be sufficient in size and representative of the overall population. The author also should provide the details of the residents, such as age, sex, profession, etc, which are crucial to determine whether this study's conclusion can represent the overall view of residents. It is entirely possible that people inclined to watch television and like to discuss what they had seen were more willing to respond the survey that other people were. Thus, lacking evidence of a sufficiently representative sample, the author cannot justifiably rely on the study to draw any conclusion whatever.
    Secondly, even if the study's conclusion that daily's conversations are more likely reference to watching television than to reading fiction, the author cannot unfairly assume that there is an cause and effect relationship between people's more frequently talking about TV shows and publishing and bookselling industries are more likely to decline in profitability. As we know, the television program includes a large range, such as news, comments, issues about some hotspots and some programs for amusement, which could not be written by writers. At the same time, for the author provides no evidence that people who are less likely to talk about fiction would have a lower desire to buy fiction, and the television industry would gain any profits from those people who mention TV show more frequently. It is entirely possibly that people regard TV show as a common topic to keep the conversation going on, actually, and prefer reading fiction to watching television. In brief, the author cannot simply equal less reading fiction to less selling fiction, let alone equal fiction to all sorts of books. Logic and common sense inform me that the study's results excluded any statistic about non-fiction book. It is entirely possible that these non-fiction books will well constitute book-publishing industry's main profit source. If that is the case, the author cannot convince me that writers should follow his/her recommendation to acquire the career.
    Moreover, even if publishing and bookselling industries are likely to decline in profitability, the author provides no evidence that such situation will last a long span of time. Since the argument provides no evidence that the decline of publishing and bookselling industries will continue for a long time and the television industry will thrive forever, the author cannot convince me that to be a writer specialized in writing for television.
    Finally, even if the study cited as evidence in the argument is statistically reliable and sufficient to justify the arguer's recommendation; at the same time, even assuming that the result of the study lends sufficiently to support the arguer's claim that the publishing and bookselling industries are likely to decline in profitability, the author's implicit claim that seeking a career as a television writer is more profitability than being a writer for print media is still unwarranted. It is entirely possible that the television writers are paid reasonably low wages, which can be known that the television industry is one of the industries of obtaining substantive profits. Without sufficient evidence that television writers are paid better than book writers, the author's recommendation is still unconvincing.
    To sum up, the author cannot justify his or her voting recommendation based on the mere evidence provided in the article. To bolster the recommendation the author must provide better information about how the survey comes out, the relationship between references times and profits, and so on. The author must also provide some details of the respondents, which renders the study more convincing.

首先批驳论据的可信程度，逐步让步批驳，结构比较紧凑，论证过程完整。单词量不小，700多字非常羡慕。

[ 本帖最后由 cinda2020 于 2007-12-4 23:01 编辑 ]