Argument97【07-10G Superstar大帖】7.29 by Huaxinluob

huaxinluoboUID: 2326780

In this argument the memo suggest KICK include more sports coverage to increase company profit and gain a large audience share. To support this suggestion the memo cites the result of a national survey and successful example of WACK. However, after scrutiny I find the suggestion unconvincing from a few flaws.

Firstly, the memo unfairly assume that attitude of audience of KICK is representative of national attitude. But the writer does not provide any evidence to prove it. Lacking evidence, it is entirely possible that men who live in the regions that KICK serves do not like sports at all, or they think the programs in sports are enough, in either case, merely offering more sports coverage can not make more audience share. So, unless the writer provides more evidence, the memo can not convince me that the measures are necessary and effective.

Secondly, the memo cites the example of WACK for additional support, which fails to lend much credence to the memo. Only the fact that audience share doubled after more sports coverage is offered can not prove that more sports coverage is responsible for the increased audience share, and there may be other reasons for it. For example, maybe at the same time WACK makes other changes, like promoting the quality of other programs, or adding new programs. If any of the scenarios is true, then the suggestion is not likely to be effective.

Finally, the memo gets to the conclusion too hastily even if the assumptions talked above are the real cases. For one thing, the memo fails to prove that the measure can increase the company profits. And the example can not help because we do not know whether profit of WACK increases while the audience share doubled. For the other, the memo ignores other possible methods of increasing profit and audience share. For example, to promote quality of sport coverage or change the programs' time to be more favorable may be more effective. After all, the suggestion is unwarranted.

To sum up, the memo fails to convince me that KICK could get more audience share and profit by offering more sports coverage. To better support it, the writer needs to provide more evidence to prove that audience that KICK serves need more sport coverage and by offering more coverage KICK can increase its profit.

desirermimiUID: 2108321

Argument97【07-10G Superstar大帖】7.29 by Huaxinluob
In this argument the memo suggest KICK include more sports coverage to increase company profit and gain a large audience share. To support this suggestion the memo cites the result of a national survey and successful example of WACK. However, after scrutiny I find the suggestion unconvincing from a few flaws.

Firstly, the memo unfairly assume that attitude of audience of KICK is representative of national attitude. But the writer does not provide any evidence to prove it. Lacking evidence, it is entirely possible that men who live in the regions that KICK serves do not like sports[sports programs,不喜欢运动不代表不喜欢运动节目哦] at all, or they think the programs in sports are enough, in either case, merely offering more sports coverage can not make more audience share.（这段你要反驳的是全国的调查“大多数男性都喜欢看运动节目”不一定适用于地区，除了质疑这个调查的代表性，还可以举出的反例，说该地区的男性更喜欢去亲自做运动而不是去看运动节目，或者他们更喜欢到现场去看运动节目而不是通过电视。你在这说“因为该地区的人们认为运动节目已经足够了，所以通过单纯提高覆盖率是不可能提高收视率的”，是不是已经偏离反驳点了呢？应该讨论的是：是不是该地区的男性与全国调查结果一样，也很喜欢看运动节目呢） So, unless the writer provides more evidence, the memo can not convince me that the measures are necessary and effective.

Secondly, the memo cites the example of WACK for additional support, which fails to lend much credence to the memo. Only the fact that audience share doubled after more sports coverage is offered can not prove that more sports coverage is responsible for the increased audience share, and there may be other reasons for it. For example, maybe at the same time WACK makes other changes, like promoting the quality of other programs, or adding new programs. If any of the scenarios is true, then the suggestion is not likely to be effective.

Finally, the memo gets to the conclusion too hastily even if the assumptions talked above are the real cases. For one thing, the memo fails to prove that the measure can increase the company profits. And the example can not help （help what?没有宾语）because we do not know whether profit of WACK increases while the audience share doubled. For the other, the memo ignores other possible methods of increasing profit and audience share. For example, to promote quality of sport coverage or change the programs' time to be more favorable may be more effective. After all, the suggestion is unwarranted. （这一段的前部分论证主要是说W城的情况我们不清楚，即使真的是运动节目帮助它提高了收拾率，但是否也提高了利润。论证后部分主要是说提高收视率上升的其它方法，比如提高有效的覆盖率，和改变节目时间。但在前部分，是否可以先指出一个类比的错误呢？即使所有的一切在W城都是有效的，也不一定适用于K，两城情况不一样。）

To sum up, the memo fails to convince me that KICK could get more audience share and profit by offering more sports coverage. To better support it, the writer needs to provide more evidence to prove that audience that KICK serves need more sport coverage and by offering more coverage KICK can increase its profit.

[小结：整体结构已经很不错，保持下去！
但是在最后一段的论证我有另一个想法，前两段论证过后，接着第三段，即使运动节目使收拾率上升了，也没有证据说一定就能使利润上升，W的例子并没给我们提供这方面的证据，有很多因素可以影响利润：广告商的兴趣、节目加多后的制作成本等。 同时，即使W城真的是个通过运动节目提高利润的成功例子，它的情况不一定适用于K，因两城情况会不一样，比如W城是个有很多男性并且具有良好运动传统的地区，人们喜欢看运动节目，而K则是女性比较多，更喜欢看娱乐节目等。这样的结构会不会清晰些？]

huaxinluoboUID: 2326780

回复一下，
第一段，你说的有道理，我写的时候真没想到那么多反例。不过题目里说很 多人 想要更多的体育节目，所以我觉得还没偏离，不过不如你提的例子好。
第三段是有类比错误，时间紧迫，就给忽视了:loveliness:

不管怎样，很有收获，谢谢你的点评