argument220

xiaonawangUID: 2114716

220The 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."

In this argument,  the arguer asserts that people who want to have careers as writers should acquire training and experience in writing for tv rather than for print media.  In order to support his assertion, the arguer cites one typical day’s conversation which has apparently more tv references than fiction references to justify his point. Based on  this evidence,  the arguer further assumes that print industry will likely to face a decline in profitability.  In my view,  this argument is not well reasoned , it suffers from three major flaws  which seriously weaken the assumptions made by the arguer.

To begin with, the study about one typical day’s conversation lacks representative.  This can be illustrated from two aspects.    Firstly,  as the arguer tells us that this study is just one typical day’s study.  Is one day time  long enough to make conclusion about what people generally talk in their daily conversations?  Perhaps not. And  what is typical  day?  For a religious people,  Sunday might be a typical day for having a rest and making  conversations,  for business people , a typical day  might be after finishing a big deal,  then they get the chance and time to share topics with their friends.  Here we can see, different people have different typical days.  Secondly, without knowing the detail information regarding the professions ,  ages,  sexes,  etc,  one can not be easily convinced about the representative of this study.  Suppose the conversation partners are TV recorders  ,  then it is natural that their topics are replete with TV references.    Hence , we can cast our doubt on whether this study is representative.

Granted that People do make more references to tv watching  than references to reading fiction.  The assumption that book selling industries are likely to decline in profitability is still problematic.  Since , we all know that book selling industries sell a great variety of books other than fictions.  It is quite likely that people make more references to reading other kinds of books other than fictions. If people's interests on other books are very strong,  and the indifference on fictions is comparatively ignorable, it is quite possilble that book selling industries can still make big money.  Even thougy people's interests on books do decline,  the assumption is still not strongly supported.  Since  the profitability of industries are influenced by many factors except for people’s interests,   such like the costs of printing machines,  the cost of papers etc.  In a word,  the assumption that book selling industries will face a decline in profitability lacks credibility.

Last but not least,  the arguer ignorantly  further suggests that all people who wish to have careers as writers should try to write for tv rather than print media.  Here,  again , the arguer expands the concept of book to print media.   As we all know print media includes not only books, but also newspapers ,  printed posters etc.  Also, the arguer ignores other aspects in determining which media people should choose if they want to pursue career in writing, such like people’s interests, what they want to be,  their  education background etc.  Suppose a person who wants to write poem , the suggestion mightbetter be  to pursue career in print media.  Simply put, the further assumption that people who want to choose writing as their career should write for tv is problematic, and logically vulnerable.

In summary, the arguer doesn’t establish a causal relationship between one day’s conversation and people’s writing priorities.  The arguer's further assumption that all people should write for tv is also unconvincing.  In order to make this argument more logically sound, and in order to  better convince us that people should write for tv ,  the arguer needs to provide more detailed evidences in aspects as discussed above.  (628)

[ Last edited by staralways on 2005-8-6 at 10:26 ]

xiaonawangUID: 2114716

大家帮忙拍拍吧，第二次限时。又作了修改。恳请狠拍。

iwaaUID: 2104689

argu 220

220The 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."

In this argument,  the arguer asserts that people who want to have careers as writers should acquire training and experience in writing for tv (TV)rather than for print media.  In order to support his assertion, the arguer cites one typical day’s conversation which has apparently more tv references than fiction references to justify his point. Based on  this evidence,  the arguer further assumes that print industry  will likely to (用法应该是 be likely to) face a decline in profitability.  In my view,  this argument is not well reasoned , it suffers from three major flaws  which seriously weaken the assumptions made by the arguer.

To begin with, the study about one typical day’s conversation lacks representative.  This can be illustrated from two aspects.    Firstly,  as the arguer tells us that this study is just one typical day’s study.  Is one day time  long enough to make conclusion about what people generally talk in their daily conversations?  Perhaps not. And  what is typical  day?  For a religious people,  Sunday might be a typical day for having a rest and making  conversations,  for business people , a typical day  might be after finishing a big deal,  then they get the chance and time to share topics with their friends.  Here we can see, different people have different typical days. (这点分析基本可行,但a typical day 应该是一个抽象化了的概念,不应理解成具体的人或日子.可以从质疑a typical day 的可信性和代表性的角度攻击) Secondly, without knowing the detail information regarding the professions ,  ages,  sexes,  etc,  one can not be easily convinced about the representative of this study.  Suppose the conversation partners are TV recorders  ,  then it is natural that their topics are replete with TV references.    Hence , we can cast our doubt on whether this study is representative.
还有个很典型的错误,就是样本数多少,能否保证代表性?觉得这段重新组织一下好点。

Granted that People do make more references to tv watching  than references to reading fiction.  The assumption that book selling industries are likely to decline in profitability is still problematic.  Since , we all know (据说不要用这类词汇好) that book selling industries sell a great variety of books other than fictions.  It is quite likely that people make more references to reading other kinds of books other than fictions. If people's interests on other books are very strong,  and the indifference on fictions is comparatively ignorable, it is quite possilble that book selling industries can still make big money.  Even thougy people's interests on books do decline,  the assumption is still not strongly supported.  Since  the profitability of industries are influenced by many factors except for people’s interests,   such like the costs of printing machines,  the cost of papers etc.（不就是一个词吗？cost. 还有management, advertisement）  In a word,  the assumption that book selling industries will face a decline in profitability lacks credibility.

Last but not least,  the arguer ignorantly (这个词是不是太强烈了??)  further suggests that all people who wish to have careers as writers should try to write for tv rather than print media.  Here,  again , the arguer expands the concept of book to print media.   As we all know print media includes not only books, but also newspapers ,  printed posters etc.  Also, the arguer ignores other aspects in determining which media people should choose if they want to pursue career in writing, such like (这是什么用法?我没见过.是我落后了?) people’s interests, what they want to be(their will),  their  education background etc.  （可以用排比句呀） Suppose a person who wants to write poem , the suggestion mightbetter be  to pursue career in print media.  Simply put, the further assumption that people who want to choose writing as their career should write for tv is problematic, and logically vulnerable.

In summary, the arguer doesn’t establish a causal relationship between one day’s conversation and people’s writing priorities.  The arguer's further assumption that all people should write for tv is also unconvincing.  In order to make this argument more logically sound, and in order to  better convince us that people should write for tv ,  the arguer needs to provide more detailed evidences in aspects as discussed above.  (628)

挺不错了呀,5分应该不成问题了.如果去掉一些拼写错,搞不好就5.5了.看来已经学到了基本的模板了.我得加油了,还差你好远呀

[ Last edited by iwaa on 2005-8-6 at 09:46 ]

xiaonawangUID: 2114716

谢谢iwaa.

有一点疏忽，我要指出：

题目并没有说是两个人在谈论，可能是两万人，然后作者取了平均后发现，每对人平均谈到23次电视，1次书籍。

你认为样本数太少，我认为这样批不妥。

不如，换成批判样本数不清楚。


还有一点，我现在想到了，就是数据模糊。

因为23：1不一点说明23>1,可能人们花99%的时间在讨论1，而只有1%的时间在讨论那23。

对不对？

iwaaUID: 2104689

我就是说样本的多少，也就是你说的样本数不清楚。数据模糊在北美范文上也有提到．

我也发了一篇，argument47

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=313242

也可以到我的blog中看到：　http://iwaa.blog.edu.cn

guesser198414UID: 2106027

又一个写六百多字的，太佩服了！
题目看了一遍感觉写起来很棘手啊
明天学习学习你的文章。

xiaonawangUID: 2114716

不敢当。