argument220 第一篇argument啊

penny_panUID: 2280804

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 career as writers should acquire training and experience in writing for television rather than for print media."

Outline
1 调查本身是不是科学合理
2 调查的内容与结果之间是不是有确定的因果联系——看电视和看小说的次数真的可以反映电视和出版业的效益吗
3 从事写作作为自己的事业与效益之间的联系也不是必然的


In this study the arguer conclude that the one who want to have one's career as writer should acquire training and experience in writing for television rather than for print media because that a study which showed that in describing a typical day's conversation people make more times references to watching television than to reading fiction suggested that, compared with the television industry, the publishing and bookselling industries were likely to decline in profitability. The arguer's conclusion is problematic in several respects, rendering the argument unconvincing as it stands.

The arguer's main problem is that it relies on unsubstantiated assumptions about a typical day's conversation. At first, the arguer did not tell us how they defined the "typical conversation". The daily talks may refer many fields, such as family, movie, love, science, history and so on. Each of these topics many refer different contents and certainly refer different parts of knowledge. The study exclaimed that it described a typical conversation, which is not enough to prove the content is reasonable and credible. The more information about this study should be given to make us clear whether this study is or not reliable. The question that how they got the statistical result and who the participants is important in this study. Could the participants represent most people's day's conversation? For example, the participants happen enjoyed watching television and their conversation surely referred more television programs than friction.

Even if this study showed that the phenomena of more television referred than friction was right, the followed conclusion that the television industry is more profitable than publishing and bookselling industries is not credible. Yet logic and common sense inform me that the profit might have been due instead to one or more other factors. In short, without considering and ruling out alternative explanations for the study's result, the arguer cannot justifiably conclude that the results due to the fact that the more references conduct the more profitable.

Even if we admit that we can conclude the profit from the reference, we still cannot give the advice that a person who wants to be a writer should learn the skill writing for television rather than for print media. The arguer confused that there are two kinds of media and they have huge differences in many aspects. At first, television as a multimedia, not only provided the words but also the picture, voice, most of the programs are dynamic while the print media show the words and the reader just read them, the more thing a print media writer can do maybe just add some pictures. The one who can write good television articles might not good at writer for print media. As a good print media writer need different skill for writing.

Aside from the problem involving the writing skills, the arguer is in a wrong stand, as he said, the one who want to be a writer need train in television because of television industry's high profit. It shows that the arguer pays attention to the benefit. If ever writer has the same idea just think how to get more money, the only thing they care would be how to cater the civil and that would be harmful for the development of literature. Sex, violence might be the best choices. That is essential harmful for the bookselling and print industry, and influence our human beings.

In conclusion, the arguer's argument is questionable. To bolster it he must make clearly the relationship of television and friction, he cursorily got a conclusion. Firstly, he should realized the difference between writing for television and for print media, secondly, he assume the relationship between reference and the profitable, the arguer did not give any details how he got the result for this study. Finely, this study is also unconvincing; we even did not how the arguer got his statistic. If the arguer wants to give us a reasonable advice, he must change the method he used to prove his conclusion. In fact, every clear-eyed brain can found how nonsensical his conclusion is.