Argument97 超时了，求猛拍，谢谢GGJJ留链必回啊

creativeUID: 2193617

TOPIC: ARGUMENT97 - 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."
WORDS: 915          TIME: 0:41:41 +二次修改         DATE: 2006-8-25

In this argument, the arguer concludes that the television station KICK should add some more sport broadcast. To support the claim, the arguer cites a nationwide survey which reveals the trend of seeing additional sports programs of most people. Mention any assumption and all the premises made by the arguer, we find that neither are the premises convincing nor is the conclusion compelling. The argument is obviously full of gaps and loop holes since it provides fragmentary evidence.

Primarily, the arguer cites a survey about the people's trend to see sports programs on television. However, the survey actually is unreliable for the following three reasons. First of them has to do with the procedure of the survey. What is the capacity of the sample? Is it large enough to reflect the mind of nationwide people? How about the quantity of sample? Is the sample random or selective? What question was asked in the survey? Is it a loaded question with a tempting answer--sport programs? All in all, the argument lacks sufficient detail about how the survey was conducted to determine what conclusions, if any, can be drawn from it. Second reason has to do with the result of the survey. On one hand, the result is misleading for the vague data such as "sizeable majority". The arguer should indicate the exact data like "70 percent" or "1235 out of 1700" to convince us the reliability of the survey. On the other hand the result of the survey lacks completeness. These statistics were based only on the data from sports programs. The arguer ignores the possibility that there are more people prefer other program such as news and talk shows over the sports program, although they like sports ones. Without ruling out these possible scenarios, the arguer cannot reasonably depend on this survey to support the claim of the trend to see sports broadcasts. Third one is about the respondents of survey. As we know, it is the key to persuade us to trust the survey that all the respondents are being forthright and representative. Unfortunately, the arguer fails to provide any evidence to support the premise. It is more likely that most the respondents have provided responses that they believe the asker approve of, regardless of whether the responses were truthful, or that people who like sports programs were more willing to respond to the survey than other people were, either of which will cause the respondents unrepresentative. Consequently, before the arguer solves the three problems above, the conclusion that people is tempting to see sports programs based on the survey is unwarranted.

Furthermore, even if there is the trend to see sports programs, the arguer assumes futher that the increase of sport broadcast cause the increase of audience share of WACK. Yet the arguer confuses the time correlation with the causal relationship. Every causal relationship implies, admittedly, a correlation, but the correlation is not necessarily imply a causal relation. While a high correlation is strong evidence of a causal relationship, in itself it is not sufficient. That is to say, the arguer overlooks that there are many other possible reasons which cause the audience share increase. Perhaps, another new program of WACK attracts people prefer this station to others. Or the audience share of other television stations reduce sharply for those stations uninteresting programs or even were bankrupt. Either scenario, if true, would render the arguer's claim that the former increase very results in the latter unjustifiable.

Similarly, even if the causal relationship is established by complete evidence, the arguer assumes further that this increase of spots programs will succeed in KICK is a hastily generalization. Perhaps, the WACK is a television station in the recreation program such as games and movies while the KICK is one in serious program such as news and political programs. In a word, without considering all the differences between the two stations, the arguer cannot assume that the experience of WACK is also an effective way for KICK to raise the share of audience.

Finally, the arguer assumes that increase of sports programs result in increase profits. However, this is not necessarily the case. Common sense tells us that profit is a factor of not only revenue but also costs. Yet the argument provides no detail about the costs involved in the change of broadcast schedule to include more sports coverage. It is entirely possible that the costs associated with the editing sports programs and dealing with the programs which are replaced increase as well. If so, then the cost of adding some sports programs and declining other programs might prevent KICK from earning a profit, although increase sports broadcasts. Accordingly, the strength of the arguer's claim of increase of company profits depend on a cost benefit analysis that arguer does not provide.

To sum up, the argument that KICK should put more sports programs in its schedule is the result of a huge speculation in which the arguer has comfortably assumed a considerable amount of data. To better assess the strength of the recommendation I would need more information about the demographic profile of the survey’s respondents. Moreover, had the arguer taken the following discussed factors into view, it would have rendered the argument irrefutable. (1)there is really a cause-and-effect relationship between the increase of sports broadcast and the rising audience share; (2)the action succeeded in WACK will also have effect in KICK; (3)the benefit of such a plan will be greater than the costs of it.

[ 本帖最后由 creative 于 2006-8-25 20:11 编辑 ]

creativeUID: 2193617

upupup。为什么只看不会呢，随便拍，留链一定回

creativeUID: 2193617

upupup

creativeUID: 2193617

up

eyetreeUID: 2212841

拜托~~~ARG写1000字????

karen0307UID: 2209695

是啊好强啊41分钟写那么多字

creativeUID: 2193617

我也知道B1写得太罗嗦了，帮我看看后面几短吧