argument97 飞跃dreams小组-第三次作业

lyokaUID: 2451632

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."



Rely on the fact that the share of WACK television station nearly doubled after it increased its sports broadcasts, the author makes the suggestion that KICK should also revise its broadcast schedule to include more sports coverage. In doing so, the author believes that KICK will gain a larger audience and more profits. However, the conclusion is flawed by several factors as follows.

Firstly, the survey the author cites only reveals that a sizeable majority of men would like to see additional sports programs on television. Nevertheless, what percent of audience is actually made up by men? If the female audience far outweighs the male, the survey is of little use when considering the measures taken to attract more audience because the interest of women is of greater importance.

Secondly, the author only notices that the WACK television station nearly doubled its share of audience after it increased its sports broadcasts, however, does that necessarily means that the former is the result of the latter? Maybe there happened to be a holiday during which people had more free time to kill or there was a big activity which attracted more attention. There is another possibility that WACK also took other measures which the author just does not mention. In either case, the author’s conclusion is incredible.

Last but not least, the author makes a mistake of false analogy. Even granted that the increased share of WACK was resulted from the broadcast of sports programs, there may be significant difference between the audiences in the two areas. It is completely possible that the audiences of the viewing area of WACK are more interested in sports and as a result the measure acted effectively. But if it is not the case in the viewing area of KICK, the suggestion of the author makes no sense, and furthermore, it may be backfire.

To sum up, what the author suggests does not strongly supported. In the absence of any further detailed information, we just cannot rule out other possibilities of the real reason of the increase of share of WACK, not to mention whether the same measure will act in the viewing area of KICK. And unless the author compares the audiences of the two areas thoroughly, the conclusion is just too hasty and of little credibility.