Argument97--Thrive小组第9次作业...

z12y12l12UID: 2452277

TOPIC: 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."

In the memo, the arguer recommends that KICK should follow the WACK's method to gain a larger audience share in their area and therefore increase company profits. His argument seems reasonable at first sight; however, I doubt whether the method to include more sports coverage would work, because the argument suffers from several critical fallacies.

The first thing that I want to point out is that the author's assumption--the increase in the WACK audience results from the increase in its sports broadcasts--is open to doubt. The author did not provide any persuasive evidence to support the raise in sports coverage is the case. For example, maybe at the same time, WACK increased the news broadcasts, and because in its viewing area most audiences do like news programs, the audience share increased. Or there might be some large sport events at that time, such as Olympic Games, so WACK increased the sports programs and its share increased. Before the author could demonstrate that the audience in WACK's area turned to WACK for the increase in sports casts, his assumption is unwarranted.

Turning to the next, even the author could provide, if any, data to prove his assumption, it is possible that the same way will not work in KICK's viewing area. Maybe in KICK's area most of audiences of KICK are senior or too young people, who do not like sports, or businessman who do much prefer business news, or women who like drama most. If so, obviously the way to increase sports broadcast won't work well there and even could lead to a decrease in audience because those people will lose their prefer programs. Thus, the author should not draw his conclusion until he has demography enough data or surveys conducted in KICK's area.

What is more, the nationwide survey lends no credibility to the author's conclusion. First, the survey was conducted only upon men, what about women? Do they like sports program? If the answer is no, the author should carefully consider the issue. Second, as mentioned above, in KICK's area the demography could be very different from the conditions around the nation. Unless KICK conducts a convincing survey in its area, such conclusion is not as persuasive as it stands.

The last but not the least, will the KICK's profit be raised after an increase in its audience? The author asserts so without a proof. But increasing the sports broadcast would increase the cost for the company. For instance, the company needs to hire more reporters, buy more equipments for the sports broadcast. The increase in audience would not necessarily lead to a profit increase.

In a nutshell, the author simply does not provide us adequate evidence to support his recommendation, and does not carefully consider the consequence of adopting such method, therefore his conclusion is weakened.


30分钟写到第三段结束...后面是后来补上的...共471字..


[ 本帖最后由 z12y12l12 于 2008-2-21 17:05 编辑 ]

vic_rainUID: 2304309

In the memo, the arguer recommends that KICK should follow the WACK's method to gain a larger audience share in their area and therefore increase company profits. His argument seems reasonable at first sight; however, I doubt whether the method to include more sports coverage would work, because the argument suffers from several critical fallacies.(建议这里简单描述为the argument suffers from several critical fallacies节省时间)

The first thing that I want to point out is that the author's assumption--the increase in the WACK audience results from the increase in its sports broadcasts--is open to doubt. The author did not provide any persuasive evidence to support the raise in sports coverage is the case. For example, maybe at the same time, WACK increased the news broadcasts, and because in its viewing area most audiences do like news programs, the audience share increased. Or there might be some large sport events at that time, such as Olympic Games, so WACK increased the sports programs and its share increased.(仅仅这段话不能帮你论证ts，反而减弱你的论证力度,其实你想说得是：WACK's doubled audiences is temporary,如果说出来就好了。) Before the author could demonstrate that the audience in WACK's area turned to WACK for the increase in sports casts, his assumption is unwarranted.

Turning to the next, even the author could provide, if any, data to prove his assumption, it is possible that the same way will not work in KICK's viewing area. Maybe in KICK's area most of audiences of KICK are senior or too young people, who do not like sports, or businessman who do much prefer business news, or women who like drama most. If so, obviously the way to increase sports broadcast won't work well there and even could lead to a decrease in audience because those people will lose their prefer programs. Thus, the author should not draw his conclusion until he has demography enough data or surveys conducted in KICK's area.
整个这一段其实可以并到上一段，都可以归结为：WACK's成功不一定因为增加的sports broadcasts,而是其他原因，比如增加或者提高质量的其他节目，而KICK不一定满足这些条件，所以同样的措施不一定成功。

What is more, the nationwide survey lends no credibility to the author's conclusion. First, the survey was conducted only upon men, what about women? Do they like sports program? If the answer is no, the author should carefully consider the issue. Second, as mentioned above, in KICK's area the demography could be very different from the conditions around the nation. Unless KICK conducts a convincing survey in its area, such conclusion is not as persuasive as it stands.
写的不错，不过论证可以更深一点。比如讲到whether survey is statistically reliable时，可以讲没有考虑其他人，women，children，而这些人因为一般比较有时间，更能代表television audience，并且，这些人一般不喜欢体育，比如女人喜欢娱乐、购物等节目，儿童喜欢动画片等等，这样就比你单纯的讲数据统计不可靠要细节的多,因为论证更有理。

The last but not the least, will the KICK's profit be raised after an increase in its audience? The author asserts so without a proof. But increasing the sports broadcast would increase the cost for the company. For instance, the company needs to hire more reporters, buy more equipments for the sports broadcast. The increase in audience would not necessarily lead to a profit increase.
也可以再详细点。

In a nutshell, the author simply does not provide us adequate evidence to support his recommendation, and does not carefully consider the consequence of adopting such method, therefore his conclusion is weakened.


30分钟写到第三段结束...后面是后来补上的...共471字..

文章结构完整，错误找得全面，但是在每个细节论证方面更细一些，这样才更有力。考虑到作者跟我一样，目前的速度比较慢，所以建议减少第一段的长度，多留时间在论证段，少些套话，多写例子与分析例子的细节.

[ 本帖最后由 vic_rain 于 2008-2-23 00:52 编辑 ]