[未归类] 不是习作--AW在现实世界中的用途！ [复制链接]

椰椰子
UID: 2659005

新手上路

Rank: 1

声望: 0
寄托币: 18
注册时间: 2009-7-1
精华: 0
帖子: 0

发表于 2009-8-10 06:59:23 |显示全部楼层

前几天在BBC看到一篇巨白痴的报道。典型AW要批判的文章。还是当天的“MOSTPOPULAR STORY” ！！！气死我了。于是用AW的格式写了篇驳文打算贴上去。大家给点意见。（版主不要当成是习作啊。。。。）

来源： http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8183502.stm
Page last updated at 12:21 GMT, Tuesday, 4August 2009 13:21 UK

China 'trusts prostitutes more'
China's prostitutes are better-trusted thanits politicians and scientists, according to an online survey published byInsight China magazine.
The survey found that 7.9% of respondentsconsidered sex workers to be trustworthy, placing them third behind farmers andreligious workers.
"A list like this is at the same timesurprising and embarrassing," said an editorial in the state-run ChinaDaily.
Politicians were far down the list, closerto scientists and teachers.
Insight China polled 3,376 Chinese citizensin June and July this year.
"The sex workers' unexpectedprominence on this list of honour... is indeed unusual," said the ChinaDaily editorial.
"At least [the scientists andofficials] have not slid into the least credible category which consists ofreal estate developers, secretaries, agents, entertainers and directors,"the editorial said.
Soldiers came in fourth place.

The author of this article asserts thatpoliticians were deemed less trustworthy than prostitutes based on an onlinesurvey published by the InsightChina magazine. It is said that 3,376 citizens attended the survey, the resultof which comes out to be the sex works is at the third place of the trustworthylist while politicians are far behind. I find this evidence unconvincing.

It is no sense to draw any conclusionsabout the publics’ opinion in a country, with population of 1.3 billion, basedon a survey of only 3,376 respondents. In statistic, a survey with small sampleis not validated. In fact, the number of respondents is so small that it isdoubtable if this is a public survey. It is very possible that the survey is justdone in a certain website during a short amount of period with a certain groupof viewers who have a special opinion towards the local prostitutes and thepoliticians, in which case the result does not represent the opinion of thepublic.

Even if the sample of this survey was bigenough, the result should not be considered as a general and fair one due tothe simplex media of this survey – internet. As we know that the internet is anewly developed media and has a specific group of audience, whose opinionshould not override the non-internet users’. These two groups have lotsintrinsic differences. Generally speaking, the internet users, who can affordthe charge of surging into internet, are relatively richer than thenon-internet users. This enables the internet users to be more possible to geta better service by paying more money. We should not ignore the fact that whilethe politicians serve to all the civilians in the country, the prostitutes onlyserve to those pay for them, which means the internet user are more likely tobe able to hire better and more worth trusted prostitutes than the non-internetusers. Therefore, without the non-internet users’ attendance the survey is not neutral.

Finally, regarding to the claim that “Politicianswere far down the list, closer to scientists and teachers”, the term “far” istoo vague to describe the position of the politicians’ credit. Was “far” an insignificantfigure of the difference, the survey could not support the author’s claim. Infact, scientist and teacher are usually highly respective occupations and the “closing”politician’s credit would not be “far down the list”. The author will notconvince me until the precise figure is given.

In sum, the article is untenable as itstands. To strength it the author should provide more details in the surveyincluding its original questions and the full list of the result. Beforereaching a conclusion, however, a more widely and general survey should be doneon the topic.