ARGUMENT220 [Victors小组]7月3日作业 by jennetrj

jennetrjUID: 2275453

ARGUMENT220 - The following appeared in an article in a magazine for writers.

"A recent study showed that in describing a typical day's conversation, people make an average of 23 references to watching television and only 1 reference to reading fiction. This result suggests that, compared with the television industry, the publishing and bookselling industries are likely to decline in profitability. Therefore, people who wish to have careers as writers should acquire training and experience in writing for television rather than for print media."
WORDS: 535          TIME: 00:30:00         

In this argument, the author recommends those people who want to be writers to get training and experience in writing for television rather than for print media. To justify this recommendation, the author cites a recent study indicating that more reference to watching television than that to reading fiction among people's daily conversation. However, close scrutiny reveals several flaws in it.

To begin with, the information about the study showed in the passage is too vague to be informative. There's no indication of who conducted the research, how many people were enrolled in the study and whether they could be the representative of the general population. It is totally possible that a television station carried out the survey and the results came out mostly from teen-agers, the group most possible to be the television addicts. Until the author provides enough information about the study, it could not be taken seriously, let alone the conclusion based on it.

Assuming that the study is statistically reliable, no promise could be made that people really preferred watching television since more frequent reference of it in daily conversation. Maybe there was a notorious political scandal first revealed by the talk show, so that more people were talking about it. And commonsense informs us that people who prefer reading are usually the taciturn ones, so that less reference to reading could be available. Or even it could be true that more reference to reading other forms of books, like mystery novels, poems were showed in that study. Either scenario, if true, would serve to undermine author's assumption that watching television is more popular than reading.

Granted reading might be less popular, it is too hasty to make a conclusion that publishing and bookselling industries are likely to decline in profitability. Profit is the function of revenues and costs. Perhaps more money should be invested into television industry, like fees for studios, preservations, photography apparatus and so on. Without consider those parameters, the author could not convince me that television industry is more profitable.

Finally, the author fails to prove the necessity for people who want to be writers to get experience and training in television industry. No promise could be made that with such experiences those people would easy get jobs as the writer, or there would be any benefits for them to start their career. Maybe writing for print media provides more opportunities for the starter to be known among the populace, while in the television industry they could only do some trivial work. Unless the author completes the analysis, the recommendation for people to get experiences in television industry is problematic.

In sum, the argument is groundless as it stands. To consolidate it, the author should provide more information about the study, such as the people involved in the study and whether they could be the representative of the general population. In addition, the author should assure us the popularity of watching television than reading in current society and show us the balance of profits in television industry and publishing. To better assess the argument, we need to know whether it would be helpful to get the job if the new writer had experience in writing for television.

[ 本帖最后由 jennetrj 于 2007-7-4 11:42 编辑 ]