Argument220【0906G背水一战三月小组】第2次作业 by yunfeiyang4ever

yunfeiyang4everUID：2604917

欢迎狂拍！！！

【提纲】逻辑关系链：①—→②—→③
           攻击要点：1. 调查是基础，调查不科学，调查人数与代表性都没有提；电视VS小说，电视范围广；
                         2. 即使调查科学，②也有问题，出版书籍包括很多，不只只有小说；并且盈利要考虑多方面因素；
                         3. 即使②成立，结论也有问题；首先，印刷媒体也能转成电视；其次，作家的写作追求不同；

【原文】
    In this argument, the arguer recommends that writers should attain training and experience in writing for television instead of print media. The recommendation is based on the survey that showed people in describing a typical day's conversation. In addition, the arguer cites that the publishing and bookselling industries, compared with the television industry, are likely to decline in profitability. A careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless the recommendation is.

    To begin with, the recommendation is basic on the survey. Yet the writer gives no information about the respondents. Perhaps the number of participate might constitute an insufficiently small sample. Or perhaps the sample might be unrepresentative of people who both watching television and reading novels. Moreover, the writer unfairly compares television with novels. As we know, television, a kind of multimedia, includes an amount of mode, such as news, amusement and movies. It takes for granted that people describe television much easier than reading fiction, because the former is close to the daily life of human. Without ruling out these possibilities, the writer cannot conclude the recommendation.

    Additionally, even assuming that the survey is reliable, the publishing and bookselling industries would not necessarily be unprofitable as a result. Firstly, without reading fiction, the publishing and bookselling industries also involve magazine, newspaper and other styles. It is entirely possible that the reading fiction industry is decreasing and the magazine industry is ascending dramatically in profitability. For that matter, the publishing and bookselling industries are still profitability as well as television industry.

    Furthermore, even assuming that the publishing and bookselling industries are decline in profitability recently, the arguer makes certain dubious assertions without weighing other unexpected consequences. For instance, there are many of reading fiction which has transformed to the movies or opera. Also, people who wish to have careers as writers explore individual value. It is entirely possible that people only satisfy that more and more people reading their novels instead of watching it on the television. Accordingly, the author cannot draw any firm conclusion that people should acquire training and experiencing in writing for television.

    In summary, the recommendation lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the argument does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintained. To strengthen the argument, the writer would have to produce more clear evidence concerning on the reliable the survey-perhaps by providing the sufficient in size and representative of the overall population. Furthermore, to better the argument, we would need more information on profit of television and print industries.

seagullhereUID：2205266

欢迎狂拍！！！

【提纲】逻辑关系链：①—→②—→③
           攻击要点：1. 调查是基础，调查不科学，调查人数与代表性都没有提；电视VS小说，电视范围广；
                         2. 即使调查科学，②也有问题，出版书籍包括很多，不只只有小说；并且盈利要考虑多方面因素；
                         3. 即使②成立，结论也有问题；首先，印刷媒体也能转成电视；其次，作家的写作追求不同；

【原文】
    In this argument, the arguer recommends that writers should attain training and experience in writing for television instead of print media. The recommendation is based on the survey that showed people in describing a typical day's conversation. In addition, the arguer cites that the publishing and bookselling industries, compared with the television industry, are likely to decline in profitability. A careful examination of this argument would reveal how groundless the recommendation is.

    To begin with, the recommendation is based on the survey. Yet the writer gives no information about the respondents.(具体什么信息？不然这句话显得不准确，毕竟提供对谈话内容的信息) Perhaps the number of participate（responders） might constitute an insufficiently small sample. Or perhaps the sample might be unrepresentative of people who both watching television and reading novels. Moreover, the writer unfairly compares television with novels. As we know, television, a kind of multimedia, includes an amount of mode, such as news, amusement and movies. It takes for granted that people describe television much easier than reading fiction, because the former is close to the daily life of human. Without ruling out these possibilities, the writer cannot conclude the recommendation.

    Additionally, even assuming that the survey is reliable, the publishing and bookselling industries would not necessarily be unprofitable as a result. Firstly, without (besides要好些) reading fiction, the publishing and bookselling industries also involve magazines, newspaper and other styles. It is entirely possible that the reading fiction industry is decreasing and the magazine industry is ascending dramatically in profitability. For that matter, the publishing and bookselling industries are still profitability as well as(the same as )television industry.
(有点问题就是默认小说盈利在下降，虽然假设调查可靠，但是通过调查所得出的结论是有问题的，关于出版业的论证很好，但是就是中间那环可以再考虑下)
   
Furthermore, even assuming that the publishing and bookselling industries are decline in profitability recently, the arguer makes certain dubious assertions without weighing other unexpected consequences. For instance, there are many of reading fiction which has transformed to the movies or opera. Also, people who wish to have careers as writers explore individual value. It is entirely possible that people only satisfy that more and more people reading their novels instead of watching it on the television. （这几句是个什么关系？）Accordingly, the author cannot draw any firm conclusion that people should acquire training and experiencing in writing for television.
（这段有点乱，要论证的点说的不清楚，要理下思路）

    In summary, the recommendation lacks credibility because the evidence cited in the argument does not lend strong support to what the arguer maintained. To strengthen the argument, the writer would have to produce more clear evidence concerning on the reliable the survey-perhaps by providing the sufficient in size and representative of the overall population. (这句话要重新组织下，可以说的直接点 to conduct a more reliable survey)Furthermore, to better the argument（to strengthen it further）, we would need more information on profibility of television and print industries.

有些语句不是很通顺~~
逻辑点都找的很好~~但在论证中的思路组织有些地方稍微有点乱（尤其是倒数第二段）~~加油！