argument220 [0610G-我们的九月]第十二次作业

simplearenUID: 2151889

TOPIC: 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."
WORDS: 478          TIME:！！！！！          DATE: 2006-8-5

In this argument, the author conclude that people who pursue the careers as writers should acquire training and experience in writing for television rather than for print media. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer cites a recent study upon to which a decline in profitability of the publishing and bookselling industries compared to the television is suggested. However, a careful scrutiny reveals the argument was based on an unreliable study and in essence unconvincing as it stands.

To begin with, the arguer unfairly assumes that profitability definitely leads to the either-or fallacy that writer should write for television rather than for print media. Admittedly, profitability plays a indispensable role in the pursuing one's career, nonetheless, it is not the only factor involved, factors such as one's personality, interest, background all should be taken into account. Then, acquiring training and experience in writing for television and for print media do not conflict, further, it is quite reasonable that someone seeks them in both fields. Thus, to decide writers' career plan demands much more information.

Furthermore, the arguer fails to rule out the final comparison of the profitability of the two media. Even assuming profitability accounts a lot in writers' career plan and the study is credible enough to infer that publishing and bookselling industries are likely to decline in profitability, the final profitability or the initial one and the extent of the decline is not mentioned in the argument. Were the initial data is significantly high, a mild decrease would not lead a lower final value which writers might concern most.

Finally, the study is weak to lead the arguer's evaluation of the profitability in the television industry and the publishing and bookselling industries. Firstly, the survey only mentions fiction as presented, one concrete type of the publishing and bookselling industries. Thus, the fiction is unrepresentative to cover all the types in the publishing and bookselling industries. Secondly, describing a typical day's conversation is far away from the fields both the two media cover. For example, one's leisure entertainment or the use in workplace also poses significant impacts on the development of the two media. Thirdly, more detailed information which leads the credibility of the study is needed, such as the number of the respondents the representativity of these respondents. Consequently, hardly can this study lead to the arguer's assessment that profitability in print media declines compared to television industry.

To sum up, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To validate it the arguer must assure me that profitability accounts for a vital part in writers' choice between print media and television. The clear evidence about the final profitability of writing for print media is lower than the television is also required to support the argument. Finally, to better evaluate the argument, we would need more detailed information about the study or maybe a reliable study should be conducted.