Argument220 Ares第三次作业

veinardUID: 2195006

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."

In this argument, the arguer recommends that people who wish to be writers should acquire training and experience in writing for TV rather than for print media. To support this claim, the arguer cites a study which shows that the frequencies people refer to watching TV in conversation is much more than that to reading books therefore the profitability of publishing and bookselling industries will decline and the writers who work for print media will earn less. Through scrutiny we can find that the argument has several illogical flaws which prevent it from being convincing.

To begin with, the study which showed the frequencies people refer to watching TV and reading books is not statistically reliable. First, no evidence can show that these people who are investigated by this study can represent the overall people who watch TV and read fiction. Second, the references to watching TV and reading books have no direct relationship with how much TV they watch or how many fiction books they read. Perhaps the study’s subjects all refer to a same TV program and they don’t watch TV except this program, so the time they spend on TV maybe less than reading books. Therefore, the statistics can't state the amounts of television people watch compared to fiction books they read.

Even if the study cited can reflect the amount of television people watch and fiction books they read, it’s illogical to infer that publishing and bookselling industries are likely to decline in profitability based on this study. The relatively greater amount of watching TV doesn't inevitably lead to the higher profit of the TV industry. In fact, the arguer doesn't show any correlation, let alone cause-and-effect relationship between the time people spend in TV and the profit of this industry. Moreover, the statistics only show the references to reading fiction, which excluded any data of nonfiction books. The arguer ignores that nonfiction books can also contribute to the profit of the publishing and bookselling industry. In any event, lacking financial statistic of the profit of the both industry, the arguer cannot convince me that publishing and bookselling industries' profit are likely to decline.

Finally, even assuming that the profitability of the publishing and bookselling industries will truly decline compared to the television industry, the arguer's implicit claim that the TV writers will earn more money than print media writers is without support. It's entirely possible that the TV writers are paid less because the people who write for TV have been overmuch. If so, the TV writers even face the danger to lose jobs. In this situation, following the arguer's recommendation is apparently unreasonable and foolish to some extent.

In sum, the argument is dubious as it relies on a series of unpersuasive statistic and unproved assumption. To strengthen it, the arguer should prove that the study's subjects represent the overall population and their references to watching TV and reading books can reflect the amount of TV and books they watch and read. In addition, the arguer should provide persuasive statistic of these two industries’ profits and prove the profits can determine the wages of writers who work for them.

victorduguUID: 2176422

In this argument, the arguer recommends that people who wish to be writers should acquire training and experience in writing for TV rather than for print media. To support this claim, the arguer cites a study which shows that the frequencies people refer to watching TV in conversation is much more (表示频率的话应该用higher) than that to reading books therefore the profitability of publishing and bookselling industries will decline and the writers who work for print media will earn less. Through scrutiny we can find that the argument has several illogical (用logical就可以了) flaws which prevent it from being convincing.

To begin with, the study which showed the frequencies people refer to watching TV and reading books is not statistically reliable. First, no evidence can show that these people who are investigated by this study can represent the overall people who watch TV and read fiction. Second, the references to watching TV and reading books have no direct relationship with how much TV they watch or how many fiction books they read. Perhaps the study’s subjects all refer to a (改为the) same TV program and they don’t watch TV except this program, so the time they spend on TV maybe less than reading books (这都能想到，佩服，呵呵). Therefore, the statistics can't state the amounts of television people watch compared to fiction books they read.

Even if the study cited can reflect the amount of television people watch and fiction books they read, it’s illogical to infer that publishing and bookselling industries are likely to decline in profitability based on this study. The relatively greater amount of watching TV doesn't inevitably (感觉用necessarily更顺些) lead to the higher profit of the TV industry. In fact, the arguer doesn't show any correlation, let alone cause-and-effect relationship between the time people spend in TV and the profit of this industry. Moreover, the statistics only show the references to reading fiction, which excluded any data of nonfiction books. The arguer ignores that nonfiction books can also contribute to the profit of the publishing and bookselling industry. In any event, lacking financial statistic of the profit of the both industry, the arguer cannot convince me that publishing and bookselling industries' profit are likely to decline. (这段最后几句感觉很有力量，咄咄逼人，很不错)

Finally, even assuming that the profitability of the publishing and bookselling industries will truly decline compared to the television industry, the arguer's implicit claim that the TV writers will earn more money than print media writers is without support. It's entirely possible that the TV writers are paid less because the people who write for TV have been overmuch. If so, the TV writers even face the danger to lose jobs. In this situation, following the arguer's recommendation is apparently unreasonable and foolish to some extent. (这个错误找得不错)

In sum, the argument is dubious as it relies on a series of unpersuasive statistic and unproved assumption. To strengthen it, the arguer should prove that the study's subjects represent the overall population and their references to watching TV and reading books can reflect the amount of TV and books they watch and read. In addition, the arguer should provide persuasive statistic of these two industries’ profits and prove the profits can determine the wages of writers who work for them.

看了好几遍，实在找不出来其他的错误了，呵呵。总的来说，这篇argument写得很成功，不仅基本的逻辑错误找出来了，而且组织的很合理，层层递进，步步为赢，argument就是要写出这样的气势。大家都在进步啊，相信在经历了开始的痛苦之后，我们已经开始慢慢进入状态，未来的路还很长，我们总会再经历心情沮丧，但只要痴心不改，决心不移，我们终会在一次又一次的征服中获得胜利的快感，Fighting!!!