Argument220 Kito小组作业贴 多谢修改^-^

bunnymz2005UID：2146758

【题目】Argument220（2005年2-9月总频21次）
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."
**********************************************************************
【翻译】最近一次研究显示当描述日常对话的时候，人们平均有23次提到看电视而只有一次提到读小说。这一结果说明与电视行业相比，出版和书籍销售行业的盈利能力可能会下降。因此，想要以作家为职业的人应该接受为电视而不是为印刷媒体写作的训练和经验。
**********************************************************************
【提纲】
1. 研究是有问题的。 研究的总样本数，研究的代表性。可能研究只选取了100个人而相对于一个地区的1000000人来说太少了，而且回应的人可能是喜欢看电视的孩子等或者是在电视行业工作的人。因此，这个研究不能支持文章。
2. 而且，就算数据真的精确反映了事实，那也不能推出书籍销售业和出版业盈利能力会下降。首先，人们提到读小说的次数少不一定代表人们买小说少，而且人们还可能会买别的书籍，比如字典，百科全书，杂志等等。其次出版业也不只出版书籍，它还出版各种报纸等等。最后提到盈利，还应该考虑成本问题。制作电视节目往往花费比较高。
3. 就算是电视业盈利能力强，为电视写作的作家也不一定赚得比较多。而且写作是应该凭自己兴趣的，作者的建议是很没有道理的。
Publishing is the activity of putting information into the public arena. Traditionally, the term refers to the distribution of printed works such as books and newspapers. With the advent of digital information systems and the Internet, the scope of publishing has expanded to include websites, blogs, and other forms of new media. As a business, publishing includes the development, marketing, production, and distribution of news and non-fiction magazines and books, literary works, musical works, software, and so on.
*********************************************************************
【正文】
Prior to accepting the recommendation that people who would like to be a writer should acquire training and experience in writing for television rather than for print media, I find the evidence presented in this argument requires an  in-depth scrutiny from several aspects. The author seems to have unduly relied on the problematic study and thus draw a conclusion that is fundamentally flawed.

First of all, the study, as the only evidence invoked in this argument, is unjustifiable. The author fails to inform us about the total number of the sample and whether the respondents can represent the people as a whole. It is highly possible that only 100 people respond to this study while the number of population amount to 1000000. Obviously if this is the case, the study would be insignificant for lacking representative. Besides, the author also provides no information about the respondents. Correspondingly, we have sufficient reasons to assume that the respondents are all children who, as a general rule, prefer TV to fiction. Or perhaps the study concentrates merely on the people who engage in the television industries and thus have to talk about television every day. Since the author fails to respond to these concerns, the study in this argument lends little support to the conclusion.

In addition, even assuming that the statistics of the recent study are precise to reflect the reality, it is nevertheless perfunctory to assume that the profit of the bookselling and publishing industries tends to abate. For one thing, people rarely refer to fiction does not necessarily indicate that they would not buy fictions or other books such as dictionaries, encyclopedias, magazines, newspapers and so forth. For another thing, as we know today, publishing has expanded to include not only the books but also the other forms such as webs, blogs, etc. Even if we concede that the profit in publishing the books does decrease, there is still a good chance that the profit in publishing the webs or blogs sharply increases which may eventually cover up the loss of the books. Hence, lacking further information about the sales of other new forms, the assumption that both the bookselling and publishing industries would decline in profitability is premature at best.

Before coming to finish my analysis, we might also turn our focus to the conclusion which advises people to choose the training and experience course in writing for television rather than for print media. The author illogically presumes that writing for television would earn more money than that for print media. However, it may not be the case. In fact, people who writing for television may earn less since television industries, in order to attract audience, usually spends large percentage of their revenues to invest in making the program or bringing in the popular movies or soap operas from home and abroad, which may leave far less money to the people who write for the television than that for the newspaper. Besides, the author also overlooks the writers' interest which may play the vital role in choosing to work for television or print media. Absent this information, the conclusion that people should acquire training and experiencing in the writing for television can not convince me at all.

To sum up, from the discussion above, we can confidently assert that this argument is fundamentally illogical. To better evaluate it, the author should provide detailed information about study quoted in this argument. Moreover, the author should rule out other factors that may also have impact on the profit of publishing and bookselling industries.

[ 本帖最后由 bunnymz2005 于 2006-2-2 20:41 编辑 ]

lawrence1984UID：178326

Argument220 Kito小组作业贴 多谢修改^-^

【题目】Argument220（2005年2-9月总频21次）
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."
**********************************************************************
【翻译】最近一次研究显示当描述日常对话的时候，人们平均有23次提到看电视而只有一次提到读小说。这一结果说明与电视行业相比，出版和书籍销售行业的盈利能力可能会下降。因此，想要以作家为职业的人应该接受为电视而不是为印刷媒体写作的训练和经验。
**********************************************************************
【提纲】
1. 研究是有问题的。 研究的总样本数，研究的代表性。可能研究只选取了100个人而相对于一个地区的1000000人来说太少了，而且回应的人可能是喜欢看电视的孩子等或者是在电视行业工作的人。因此，这个研究不能支持文章。
2. 而且，就算数据真的精确反映了事实，那也不能推出书籍销售业和出版业盈利能力会下降。首先，人们提到读小说的次数少不一定代表人们买小说少，而且人们还可能会买别的书籍，比如字典，百科全书，杂志等等。其次出版业也不只出版书籍，它还出版各种报纸等等。最后提到盈利，还应该考虑成本问题。制作电视节目往往花费比较高。
3. 就算是电视业盈利能力强，为电视写作的作家也不一定赚得比较多。而且写作是应该凭自己兴趣的，作者的建议是很没有道理的。（提纲没有问题了，考虑很全面！）
Publishing is the activity of putting information into the public arena. Traditionally, the term refers to the distribution of printed works such as books and newspapers. With the advent of digital information systems and the Internet, the scope of publishing has expanded to include websites, blogs, and other forms of new media. As a business, publishing includes the development, marketing, production, and distribution of news and non-fiction magazines and books, literary works, musical works, software, and so on.（好认真！学习……）
*********************************************************************
【正文】
Prior to accepting the recommendation that people who would like to be a writer should acquire training and experience in writing for television rather than for print media, I find the evidence presented in this argument requires an  in-depth scrutiny from several aspects. The author seems to have unduly relied on the problematic study and thus draw a conclusion that is fundamentally flawed.（这是你的模版，很好了）

First of all, the study, as the only evidence invoked in this argument, is unjustifiable. The author fails to inform us about the total number of the sample and whether the respondents can represent the people as a whole（驳斥study 的典型方面，写得挺好的！）. It is highly possible that only 100 people respond to this study while the number of population amount to 1000000. Obviously if this is（was）  the case, the study would be insignificant for lacking representative. Besides, the author also provides no information about the respondents. Correspondingly,( 改为for that matter,如何？) we have sufficient reasons to assume that the respondents are all children who, as a general rule, prefer TV to fiction. Or perhaps the study concentrates merely on the people who engage in the television industries and thus have to talk about television every day.（很好，注意到了细节！） Since the author fails to respond to these concerns, the study in this argument lends little support to the conclusion.段落也基本形成了模版，运用上也很自然熟练，连接紧密。逻辑合理，这段的驳斥我觉得没有问题了。）

In addition, even assuming that（让步） the statistics of the recent study are precise to reflect the reality, it is nevertheless perfunctory to assume that the profit of the bookselling and publishing industries tends to abate. For one thing, people rarely refer to fiction does not necessarily indicate that they would not buy fictions or other books such as dictionaries, encyclopedias, magazines, newspapers and so forth. For another thing, as we know today, publishing has expanded to include not only the books but also the other forms such as webs, blogs, etc. Even if we concede that the profit in publishing the books does decrease, there is still a good chance that the profit in publishing the webs or blogs sharply increases which may eventually cover up the loss of the books. Hence, lacking further information about the sales of other new forms, the assumption that both the bookselling and publishing industries would decline in profitability is premature at best. （很好，很全面！）

Before coming to finish my analysis（转换了连接词，好！）, we might also turn our focus to the conclusion which advises people to choose the training and experience course in writing for television rather than for print media. The author illogically presumes that writing for television would earn more money than that for print media. However, it may not be the case. In fact, people who writing（write） for television may earn less since television industries, in order to attract audience, usually spends large percentage of their revenues to invest in making the program or bringing in the popular movies or soap operas from home and abroad, which may leave far less money to the people who write for the television than that for the newspaper.（这句话写得太长了，看起来很累!呵呵！） Besides, the author also overlooks the writers' interest which may play the vital role in choosing to work for television or print media. Absent this information, the conclusion that people should acquire training and experiencing in the writing for television can not convince me at all.(按照提纲的思路进行驳斥，很到位！)

To sum up, from the discussion above, we can confidently assert that this argument is fundamentally illogical. To better evaluate it, the author should provide detailed information about study quoted in this argument. Moreover, the author should rule out other factors that may also have impact on the profit of publishing and bookselling industries.
我觉得你的argument 写到这样已经很好了，几乎到了完美的地步，继续努力！成功属于你！

[ 本帖最后由 bunnymz2005 于 2006-2-2 20:41 编辑 ]

[ 本帖最后由 lawrence1984 于 2006-2-15 18:14 编辑 ]

lawrence1984UID：178326

方便看的版本我发到你邮箱了。