argument97 飞越dreams小组第3次作业

gre_killer_wuUID: 2451830

argument97 飞越dreams小组第3次作业 by gre_killer_wu

Argument 97
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."

字数：364            时间：60 min

In this memo, the manager argues that KICK should increase its sports broadcasts to gain a larger audience share in its viewing area, thus increase company profits. To justify his argument, the manager cites a nationwide survey which shows a desire to watch more sports programs among men. And then he gives an example from WACK, a television station in another area, to demonstrate the feasibility of his suggestion. However, several logical flaws render his argument unconvincing.

To begin with, it is unknown that whether the major audiences of KICK are constituted by men or not. It is entirely possible that KICK is a television station serves mainly women audiences, who care about shopping, apparels in fashion or romantic things more than sports programs. If this is true, the manager’s recommendation will be ridiculous.

Even considering that men are the majority in KICK’s audiences, the result from a nationwide survey among men does not necessarily agrees with the situation in the particular area KICK serves. It is entirely possible that men here are in different interests and appetites. If this is true, an increase in sports programs may contributes little, or even a negative effect to the thriving of KICK. WACK’s success also renders nothing to assure KICK’s success in the rearranging program because of the reasons stated above and those factors distinguishing KICK from WACK.

Finally, even the things we care about above are advantageous to the manager, there are perhaps other methods to help KICK gain a larger audience share. Maybe the main audiences of KICK have a desire in watching more programs in both sports and other fields such as tourism or politics, and maybe politics programs will agree with even more audiences’ interests than sports programs. Thus, the manager’s argument is specious.

In summary, the author’s argument is not well reasoned, because of the absence of evidences which show that the major audiences KICK serves are men, and their interests agree with the result in the nationwide survey. To make this article more acceptable, I need to know the statistics about KICK’s major audiences’ appetites in all possible fields. And the details about the WACK’s success will also be useful.

[ 本帖最后由 gre_killer_wu 于 2008-2-2 17:41 编辑 ]

syjsss213UID: 2415289

In this memo, the manager argues that KICK should increase its sports broadcasts to gain a larger audience share in its viewing area, thus increase company profits. To justify his argument, the manager cites a nationwide survey which shows a desire to watch more sports programs among men. And then he gives an example from WACK, a television station in another area, to demonstrate the feasibility of his suggestion. However, several logical flaws render his argument unconvincing.


To begin with, it is unknown that whether the major audiences of KICK are constituted by men or not. It is entirely possible that KICK is a television station serves mainly women audiences, who care about shopping, apparels in fashion or romantic things more than sports programs. If this is true, the manager’s recommendation will be ridiculous.


Even considering that men are the majority in KICK’s audiences, the result from a nationwide survey among men does not necessarily agrees with the situation in the particular area KICK serves. It is entirely possible that men here have different interests and appetites. If this is true, an increase in sports programs may contributes little, or even a negative effect to the thriving of KICK. WACK’s success also renders nothing to assure KICK’s success in the rearranging program because of the reasons stated above and those factors distinguishing KICK from WACK.


Finally, even the things we care about above are advantageous to the manager, there are perhaps other methods to help KICK gain a larger audience share. Maybe the main audiences of KICK have a desire in watching more programs in both sports and other fields such as tourism or politics, （and maybe politics programs will agree with even more audiences’ interests than sports programs）有点重复了. Thus, the manager’s argument is specious.


In summary, the author’s argument is not well reasoned, because of the absence of evidences which show that the major audiences KICK serves are men, and their interests agree with the result in the nationwide survey. To make this article more acceptable, I need to know the statistics about KICK’s major audiences’ appetites in all possible fields. And the details about the WACK’s success will also be useful.


感觉你的文章里面有些观点总是不断重复，比如观众成分这个问题上第二段说了，第三段开头让步时也说了，结尾处再次出现了，应该可以简练一点。
不知你看过这个帖子没
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=412534&extra=page%3D1%26filter%3Dtype%26typeid%3D100
看了以后觉得argument的结构上要有点改进，还是先攻击最明显的逻辑错误，所以我的文章里面先攻击错误类比，再攻击其他的问题，不知道你的感觉怎么样？

PS:我电信的，一直还待学校里面，你啥时候来了学校？

Marvelous_czUID: 2451875

你好,很感谢你给我ARGU进行修改,非常感谢.
我一会也会为你的文章进行修改的.

不过我在这里需要跟楼主讨论一个问题,
似乎楼主对argument的理解上还存在问题,我不知道楼主是否上过新东方的作文课,或是读过北美的一些作文范文没有.1.张雷冬老师很清楚的跟我们讲过,argument中的论据确实是可以怀疑的,ETS并没有说过他的论据是不值得攻击的,雷冬老师还清晰地给我们举例说,作者的论据有很大部分都是值得推敲的,比如他们的响应者是否覆盖面广,抽样的样本是否科学,涵盖量是否够大等等.还专门提出了关于survey方面一系列的攻击方法.2.如果楼主认真的观看过北美一些范文的话,有很多篇的argument的范文都对作者的论据提出过质疑,就象我刚才说的那些方面一样.
我不知道楼主关于argument 的理解是基于自己的理解还是从哪获得的,我希望楼主能把这个错误的观点尽快纠正过来.

另外,不要那么肯定我在写完没检查过,我每次写完都会自己改一遍的.不过这个tow的错误,当时可能看太快了确实没有注意到.我肯定会做到自己先检查一遍,从而给拍的人节省时间的.

楼主的文章之后我会拍的,还是很感谢楼主能拍到我的文章~很荣幸,thx

Marvelous_czUID: 2451875

In this memo, the manager argues that KICK should increase its sports broadcasts to gain a larger audience share in its viewing area, thus increase company profits. To justify his argument, the manager cites a nationwide survey which shows a desire to watch more sports programs among men. And then he gives an example from WACK, a television station in another area, to demonstrate the feasibility of his suggestion. However, several logical flaws render his argument unconvincing.To begin with, it is unknown that whether the major audiences of KICK are constituted by men or not. It is entirely possible that KICK is a television station serves mainly women audiences, who care about shopping, apparels in fashion or romantic things more than sports programs. If this is true, the manager’s recommendation will be ridiculous.
分析KICK人口结构也可能是以女人为主。
写的有些单薄，可以再加深一些。
Even considering that men are the majority in KICK’s audiences, the result from a nationwide survey among men does not necessarily agrees with the situation in the particular area KICK serves. It is entirely possible that men here are in different interests and appetites. If this is true, an increase in sports programs may contributes little, or even a negative effect to the thriving of KICK. WACK’s success also renders nothing to assure KICK’s success in the rearranging program because of the reasons stated above and those factors distinguishing KICK from WACK.
这段说的是KICK和WACK的情况可能会不同，人们可能会有别的爱好。
论述的比较清晰到位。
Finally, even the things we care about above are advantageous to the manager,（再起一句吧，不然一句话两个主语了）there are perhaps other methods to help KICK gain a larger audience share. Maybe the main audiences of KICK have a desire in watching more programs in both sports and other fields such as tourism or politics, and maybe politics programs will agree with even more audiences’ interests than sports programs. Thus, the manager’s argument is specious.
这段写的就很显得重复了，虽然楼主是希望从观众和管理者两个角度去说，但至少从举例上具有很强的重复性，我认为这个攻击方向并不是很好。或者说楼主是不是找不到更好的抨击点了？
就象我之前跟楼主说过的，论据是一个很重要的攻击对象，不要盲目地认为题目中给的论据就是正确的，这是错误的，ETS允许，甚至是希望我们去攻击这个地方。
In summary, the author’s argument is not well reasoned, because of the absence of evidences which show that the major audiences KICK serves are men, and their interests agree with the result in the nationwide survey. To make this article more acceptable, I need to know the statistics about KICK’s major audiences’ appetites in all possible fields. And the details about the WACK’s success will also be useful.

楼主的语言很好，感觉确实下过很大的工夫，很值得学习。
可是在文章的逻辑和抨击力度上还是有一些问题的。最明显的就是，第三段和第四段之间的重复性过强，还有第2段的篇幅有些过小，因为那是一个很重要的抨击点，我认为第2段应该展开写更大一些的篇幅。

感谢楼主主动拍我的文章，我也在语言等方面受益匪浅。
希望以后能继续多多交流~~
如果楼主还有什么不同意见，欢迎Q我，群里找我的名字就能找到了。Thx!