argument97 大家帮我改改吧，有贴必回~刚好像字太小了

mzylUID: 2593481

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."
WORDS: 488
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2009-3-5 20:33:21

In this argument, the author concludes that in order to increase the share of the television audience in the area where the television station KICK is in, KICK should amend its broadcast schedule to include more sports programs. To support the argument, the manager cites a nationwide survey that men want to see more sports programs on television. And the manager also points out that the share of the audience rating in WACK's viewing area increased twice much than before after they add sports broadcasts. However, careful scrutiny of the argument reveals that it contains several logical flaws, which render it entirely unpersuasive.

To begin with, the author's conclusion that KICK should add more sports programs to gain a larger audience share depends on the assumption that the nationwide survey applies equally to the viewing area of KICK and the desire of the men who were surveyed can be representative of that of the overall people. Yet these might not be the case, for a variety of possible reasons. Perhaps, the local men like to see other programs such as art programs or cartoons rather than sports programs. Even if the men of the local place favor sports programs, other people such as children and women might not like to see. Without considering these and other possible factors, the manager cannot recommend that KICK should amend their broadcast schedule to include more sports coverage.

Secondly, the author also assumes unfairly that the risen share of the television audience in the viewing area of WACK is responsible for the additional sports broadcasts. Perhaps, the station WACK also makes changes in other aspects. For example, the time of the broadcasts might be changed. Or perhaps, they add other programs such as cartoons and soap dramas as well. Lacking evidence that the increased sports programs are the reason for the risen audience rating, the author cannot conclude that adding sports programs would gain a larger audience share.

Thirdly, even assuming that the risen share is due to the sports programs, the author fails to consider the possible dissimilarities of the two areas that might help to bring about a different result. Perhaps, people in KICK's viewing area do not like sports programs at all. For that matter, it is entirely possible that adding sports programs would reduce the share of the television audience.

Finally, even assuming that the audience rating would increase after the television station KICK adds sports programs, the profits would not increase. Perhaps, the cost of the sports programs is more expensive than other programs. Without weighting the revenue and expense, the author cannot conclude that KICK would increase company profits.

In sum, the argument is logically unconvincing as it stands. To better assess the argument, the author should conduct a survey that what programs the whole local people want to see on the television. And I would also need to know the cost of broadcasting sports programs.