Argument220 G-89-互助社 8.13作业

wsdegUID: 199069

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 in writing for television rather than for print media.'

Merely depending on a serious of unwarranted assumption and dubious evidence, the author recommends that training and experience in writing for television rather than for print media are required if one wants to pursue a career as writers. To support this recommendation, the author cites a recent study about the preponderated average references to watching TV over those to reading fiction. One basis of the results, the author assumes that few people tend to reading books rather than watching television. Further, relying on the former assumption, the author unfairly concludes that compared with the television industry, the publishing and bookselling industries are likely to decline in profitability. Close scrutiny of each of these evidences, however, reveals that none of them lend credible support to the recommendation.

To begin with, the statictical evidence of the study upon which the argument relies is too vague to be imformative. Firstly, the author does not provide any evidence to imply that the total number of responding population. Secondly, there is no statistical evidence to show how many percentages of those people. Thirdly, it is unsound to ignore the representativeness of those people. Maybe those people are youngsters who usually love watching television. Maybe those people love other entertainments like watching DVD, reading poems, or reading magzines. Lacking evidence of sufficiently representative samples, the author cannot justifiably rely on the study to draw any further conclusion.

In addition, the author fails to convince me that the study is credible to illustrate that people prefer to watch TV rather than read fiction. The vague word "reference" are too ambiguous to illustrate that people prefer more on television. Maybe they refer to watching television just because they want to complain the quality of programme or the high fees for CATV. Besides, who carries out the conversation is unknown to us. Perhaps it is a study carried out by CATV aiming at alluring more people to watch TV. Without ruling out these possiblities, I could not convinced by the author that people love watching tv more than reading fiction.

Even if the assumption mentioned above is comformed, it is nevertheless possible that the publishing and bookselling industries are likely to decline in profitability by comparison with the television industry. On the one hand, the author fallaciously assumes that fiction is the only publication in the publishing and bookselling industries. On the other hand, even if people are more likely to watch TV does not indicate that they will pay less on book. They may seperate their spare time on both television and books, which will results in stable or even increasing profits.

Finally, a careful reading of the last assumption reveals another fundamental flaw. Even if the publishing and bookselling industries are likely to decline in profitability, it is almost irrelevant to what training and experience should be required in pursuits of writng careers.

To sum up, the forgoing chains of reasoning incisively weaken the assumption of the author. To bolster the recommendation, the author should provide more statistical evidence about the study. The author should also provide more evidence of the causal relationship between people’s preference and profitability. To better assess the recommendation, people who wish to have careers as writers should also need to know the correlation between industry profitability and this recommendation.

fishjoyUID: 2116013

Merely depending on a serious of unwarranted assumption and dubious evidence, the author recommends that training and experience in writing for television rather than for print media are required if one wants to pursue a career as writers. To support this recommendation, the author cites a recent study about the preponderated average references to watching TV over those to reading fiction. One basis of the results, the author assumes that few people tend to reading books rather than watching television. Further, relying on the former assumption, the author unfairly concludes that compared with the television industry, the publishing and bookselling industries are likely to decline in profitability. Close scrutiny of each of these evidences, however, reveals that none of them lend credible support to the recommendation.

To begin with, the statictical evidence of the study upon which the argument relies is too vague to be imformative. Firstly, the author does not provide any evidence to imply that the total number of responding population. Secondly, there is no statistical evidence to show how many percentages of those people. Thirdly, it is unsound to ignore the representativeness of those people. Maybe those people are youngsters who usually love watching television. Maybe those people love other entertainments like watching DVD, reading poems, or reading magzines. Lacking evidence of sufficiently representative samples, the author cannot justifiably rely on the study to draw any further conclusion.你的一二点都是一个意思，sample的数目，可以合并。

In addition, the author fails to convince me that the study is credible to illustrate that people prefer to watch TV rather than read fiction. The vague word "reference" are too ambiguous to illustrate that people prefer more on television. Maybe they refer to watching television just because they want to complain the quality of programme or the high fees for CATV. Besides, who carries out the conversation is unknown to us. Perhaps it is a study carried out by CATV aiming at alluring more people to watch TV. Without ruling out these possiblities, I could not convinced by the author that people love watching tv more than reading fiction.

Even if the assumption mentioned above is comformed, it is nevertheless possible that the publishing and bookselling industries are likely to decline in profitability by comparison with the television industry. On the one hand, the author fallaciously assumes that fiction is the only publication in the publishing and bookselling industries. On the other hand, even if people are more likely to watch TV does not indicate that they will pay less on book. They may seperate their spare time on both television and books, which will results in stable or even increasing profits.

Finally, a careful reading of the last assumption是哪一个要讲明白 reveals another fundamental flaw. Even if the publishing and bookselling industries are likely to decline in profitability, it is almost irrelevant to what training and experience should be required in pursuits of writng careers.  

To sum up, the forgoing chains of reasoning incisively weaken the assumption of the author. To bolster the recommendation, the author should provide more statistical evidence about the study. The author should also provide more evidence of the causal relationship between people’s preference and profitability. To better assess the recommendation, people who wish to have careers as writers should also need to know the correlation between industry profitability and this recommendation.
主要的错误都找出来了，顺序按照让步排的，很好。但是每段中句与句之间的层次不清晰。建议：力求每句表达一个意思，不重复，不啰嗦。加油！:)