Argument220 Ares战队George第三次作业

baihe1988UID: 2203505

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.'


提纲：
第一，        文中所提及的调查不可信，因为文章既没有说明调查的方式也没有说明调查的对象，根本就没有充分的语句能够显示调查是合理可信的。
第二，        文中所提及的调查只是包括了印刷媒体里面的小说这一种，但是印刷媒体的范围除了小说还有很多，所以结论没有成立的论据支持。
第三，        电视中的内容很多都和现实生活比较接近，所以容易被人们所谈论到；而小说里的东西相对而言离现实生活都比较远，所以被人们谈论到的机会就小多了。
第四，        印刷媒体比如小说的阅读是个人行为；而电视却通常是很多人聚集在一起看，所以在别人面前引用什么例子的时候人们通常会选择电视而不选择印刷媒体。


正文：
The arguer concludes that people who wish to have careers as writers should acquire training and experience in writing for television rather than for print media, which are not well supported in this argument. There are several faults concerning the argument’s logic part, which make the arguer’s conclusion unwarranted.

First of all, the study cited in the argument is unbelievable. In this article, there is no evidence which shows that what kinds of people have taken part in the study, and how is the study been carried out. Any other related message is not given either. These pieces of information are all of great importance. Without these pieces of important information, I probably couldn’t agree with the arguer that the study is reliable.

Secondly, the study is merely about the television and the fiction. But the publishing industry has also covered many other kinds of readings besides the fictions, such as magazines, newspapers, textbooks and so on. Fiction is just one member of the publishing industry. So, there is not enough evidence which can support the arguer’s opinion. As a result, because of lacking of evidence, the arguer’s conclusion is hardly correct.

Thirdly, those television programmes, for example the television news, are more close to our real daily lives, comparing to the content of fiction. People get along with those things which are the main character of the television programme. But those things, characterized by the writers in those fictions, are very rare in our daily lives. As a result, more and more things of the television programme are mentioned during our daily lives, and fewer and fewer contents of the fictions are referred to in our real lives.

Last but not the least, reading the publishing books such as the fictions, is just one person’s deed; but watching the television is often belonging to many people’s behavior. That is a real difference between the television and the publishing industry. So, if a person wants to cite something to demonstrate a topic, he will probably refer to an evidence came from the television, but not a one came from the books. That is because the knowledge came from the television can be understood by all the others, but the information came from the books might be comprehended only by himself.

In sum, the arguer fails to support his opinion. There are several flaws listed above existed in the argument. If the arguer wants to make his opinion more supported and more held up, he should provide more information about the study and should come up with a more comprehensive investigation, which should cover the television and all sorts of publications. Only by that, can we get a correct conclusion about the publishing industry and the television.


写作感想：找点好像已经不是什么问题了，但是要想把点写好了绝非易事啊！我每次写的时候都是感觉没话说了，郁闷！


写作时间：1个半小时！

gamblerboUID: 2212217

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.'


提纲：
第一，        文中所提及的调查不可信，因为文章既没有说明调查的方式也没有说明调查的对象，根本就没有充分的语句能够显示调查是合理可信的。
第二，        文中所提及的调查只是包括了印刷媒体里面的小说这一种，但是印刷媒体的范围除了小说还有很多，所以结论没有成立的论据支持。
第三，        电视中的内容很多都和现实生活比较接近，所以容易被人们所谈论到；而小说里的东西相对而言离现实生活都比较远，所以被人们谈论到的机会就小多了。
第四，        印刷媒体比如小说的阅读是个人行为；而电视却通常是很多人聚集在一起看，所以在别人面前引用什么例子的时候人们通常会选择电视而不选择印刷媒体。


正文：
The arguer concludes that people who wish to have careers as writers should acquire training and experience in writing for television rather than for print media, which are (?is) not well supported in this argument（which is supported by some unfounded assumption and no sufficient evidence）. There are several faults concerning the argument’s logic part, which make the arguer’s conclusion unwarranted.

First of all, the study cited in the argument is unbelievable. In this article, there is no evidence which shows (to show更妥) that what (? which) kinds of people have taken part in the study, and how is the study been carried out(how the study is carried out或how the study has been carried out). Any other related message is not given either. These pieces of information are all of great importance. Without these pieces of important information, I probably couldn’t agree with the arguer that the study is reliable.

Secondly, even assuming that …(the study is statistically reliable之类), the study is merely about the television and （建议删）the fiction. But the publishing industry has also covered many other kinds of readings besides the fictions, such as magazines, newspapers, textbooks and so on. Fiction is just one member of the publishing industry. So, there is not enough evidence which can support the arguer’s opinion. As a result, because of lacking of evidence, the arguer’s conclusion is hardly correct.
//个人看法：严格说来，你的第二点也属于the study is not reliable的范畴。分开写没有问题，只是你第一段的最后一句最好改写。例如：the study is not  statistically reliable.

Thirdly, those television programmes （也有用television programmes，但更多用television program）, for example the television news, are more close to our real daily lives, comparing to the content of fiction. People get along with those things which are the main character of the television programme. But those things, characterized by the writers in those fictions, are very rare in our daily lives. As a result, more and more things of the television programme are mentioned during our daily lives, and fewer and fewer contents of the fictions are referred to in our real lives.

Last but not the least, reading the publishing books such as the fictions, is just one person’s deed; but watching the television is often belonging to many people’s behavior. That is a real difference between the television and the publishing industry. So, if a person wants to cite something to demonstrate a topic, he will probably refer to an evidence came (? coming) from the television, but not a one came from the books. That is because the knowledge came from the television can easily be understood by all the others, but the information came from the books might be comprehended only by himself (? The reader oneself).

In sum, the arguer fails to support his opinion. There are several flaws listed above (and) existed in the argument. If the arguer wants to make his opinion more supported (convincing) and more held up, he should provide more information about the study and should come up with a more comprehensive investigation, which should cover the television and all sorts of publications. Only by that, can we get a correct conclusion about the publishing industry and the television.
//最好一段写得有点罗嗦。个人建议应简洁一点。不过是个小问题。到最后了，时间够就多写，不够就少写。

写作感想：找点好像已经不是什么问题了，但是要想把点写好了绝非易事啊！我每次写的时候都是感觉没话说了，郁闷！


写作时间：1个半小时！
个人总结：
一，        关于语言：
1，        英语水平有限，只看出了一些语言问题，并且还不知道改对没。抱歉：）
2，        语言能基本上表达提纲列出的意思。
3，        注意在每一段的句子中间多用一些连词。例如：first of all，and then，in a word等。可能会通畅些。
4，        注意每个段落之间的句意转换。很遗憾，你的段落除了第一个单词呼应外，在内容上没有什么呼应或衔接。我以前也注意，看了北美范文后，大汗！推荐。
二，        关于提纲：
1，        你忽略了一个最关键的词“profitability”。你的提纲和写作中没有提及。特大败笔。
2，        你的提纲和写作中没有围绕一个中心：the conclusion in the argument。注意！

baihe1988UID: 2203505

MARS改的很好——尤其这篇阿狗！
赞！好好吸取教训～嗯～！