Argument220 ARES战队第三次作业

amadis007UID: 2101081

220. 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."
最近一次研究显示当描述日常对话的时候，人们平均有23次提到看电视而只有一次提到读小说。这一结果说明与电视行业相比，出版和书籍销售行业的盈利能力可能会下降。因此，想要以作家为职业的人应该接受为电视而不是为印刷媒体写作的训练和经验。
people make references to television and reading fiction.
论断：想当作家的人应该获得为电视写作的训练经验而不是为印刷媒体。因为最近一份研究显示人们日常的谈话平均引用电视和小说的比例为23:1。这个结果表示，与电视产业相比，出版和书的销售利润可能都在下降。 •
前提，出版和销售的利润在下降。没有任何有关的数字。而所谓的调查只讲了小说，而印刷媒体中有很多种，不只是小说。电视的利润也不一定就是在上升。 •
论据，该调查非常不可信，首先描述不科学。其次，比较的是电视和小说。但是电视节目内容很广，比如新闻、或是其他类似issue的东西。这些因为与人们生活比较接近，所以容易被谈论到，但这些都不是作家可以写的。第三，电视因为其媒介的特性，一般为很多人同时收看，而小说阅读是相对个人的活动，所以不太容易被谈论到。但人们的谈论与他们主要接触什么样的媒体并没有直接的联系。最后，可能忽略了作家可以同时写电视和报纸等媒体，这两方面并非相互排斥。•
结论：这种说法没有道理。为了增强说服力，作者应该提供更为可靠的研究。

In this argument, the author concludes that people who wish to have careers as writers should acquire training and experience in writing for television rather than for print media. To support the conclusion, the author cites a recent study about typical day’s conversation covering more people watch9ing television than reading fiction and the proportion was nearly 23:1. Then, the author indicated that compared with the television industry, the publishing and bookselling industries are likely to decline in profitability. At first glance, the view was well presented. But if we take a second thought, it is unreliable and hence does not lend strong support to what the arguer claims.

In the first place, there is no strong evidence that can prove that the declining in profitability of the publishing and bookselling industries have some direct relationship with the more references to watching television. There exist other factors that can influence the number of the references to watching TV in a conversation. Perhaps these persons which are selected in the study just have a strong prejudice in TV. Even if this was not that situation, the investigation failed to show it can be represented as the whole region. The print media was covering a large wide field. Excluded fiction, they also included magazine, journal, newspaper, weekly and monthly, and both are very popular in our daily life.

In the second place, the arguer failed to convince us that the investigation was credible and reasonable. Firstly, merely one typical conversation can not illustrate that the argument is comprehensive and accurate. It must be more conversation in which the references to television are more than those to book. Secondly, the sample selected in the argument was only compared television with fiction. In common sense, we know that the TV program was covering widely, including News, Entertainment, Sports and so on. Since these programs are very close to people’s lives and can be easily talking and comparing. But novelist was hardly to write fiction to memory those things. So it can be pardonable. Thirdly, consider the media properties of television, it can be watching by many people at the same time, but reading fiction is a relatively personal activities, it is less easily to be talk about. However, there is no direct relation between the conversation and media which the often contacted.

Last but not least, the arguer commits a fallacy of "false dilemma". The arguer ignores the possibility of that a writer can write for both television and print media and so he can acquire both training and experience. Both these are not mutually exclusive.

In sum, this argument is not well reasoned. To strengthen the argument, the arguer should provide a reliable study citing the representatives of all the people and establish a causal relation between daily conversation reference and people's preference in watching TV and reading books. To better evaluate the argument, the arguer should also rule out other factors influence the profitability of publishing and bookselling industries and give evidence to support that a writer can only choose one way of writing.
(511 words)

Tomas007UID: 2107663

In this argument, the author concludes that people who wish to have careers as writers should acquire training and experience in writing for television rather than for print media. To support the conclusion, the author cites a recent study about typical day’s conversation covering more people watch9ing television than reading fiction and the proportion was nearly 23:1. Then, the author indicated that compared with the television industry, the publishing and bookselling industries are likely to decline in profitability. At first glance, the view was well presented. But if we take a second thought, it is unreliable and hence does not lend strong support to what the arguer claims.

In the first place, there is no strong evidence that can prove that the declining in profitability of the publishing and bookselling industries have some direct relationship with the more references to watching television. There exist other factors that can influence the number of the references to watching TV in a conversation. Perhaps these persons which are selected in the study just have a strong prejudice in TV. Even if this was not that situation, the investigation failed to show it can be represented as the whole region. The print media was covering a large wide field. Excluded fiction, they also included magazine, journal, newspaper, weekly and monthly, and both are very popular in our daily life.
In the second place, the arguer failed to convince us that the investigation was credible and reasonable. Firstly, merely one typical conversation can not illustrate that the argument is comprehensive and accurate. It must be more conversation in which the references to television are more than those to book. Secondly, the sample selected in the argument was only compared television with fiction. In common sense, we know that the TV program was covering widely, including News, Entertainment, Sports and so on. Since these programs are very close to people’s lives and can be easily talking and comparing. But novelist was hardly to write fiction to memory those things. So it can be pardonable. Thirdly, consider the media properties of television, it can be watching by many people at the same time, but reading fiction is a relatively personal activities, it is less easily to be talk about. However, there is no direct relation between the conversation and media which the often contacted.
Last but not least, the arguer commits a fallacy of "false dilemma". The arguer ignores the possibility of that a writer can write for both television and print media and so he can acquire both training and experience. Both these are not mutually exclusive.
In sum, this argument is not well reasoned. To strengthen the argument, the arguer should provide a reliable study citing the representatives of all the people and establish a causal relation between daily conversation reference and people's preference in watching TV and reading books. To better evaluate the argument, the arguer should also rule out other factors influence the profitability of publishing and bookselling industries and give evidence to support that a writer can only choose one way of writing.

找的错误都挺好的，论证也比较有力，logic也非常好，但是开头和结尾的长度应该控制一下，开头一段108字，结尾80字，占到了全文的1/3，应该适当压缩。毕竟Argument重在找理由反驳，而不在前文叙述事实：带出作者错误的结论出来就行。