argument220 5*4

linda_zhengUID: 2124165

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."

In this argument, the author concludes that the publishing and bookselling industries seems to get less profits compared with television industry and suggests that a future-writer should make more effort in training for television rather than for printing industry. However, the recommendation relies on a series of unsubstantiated assumption, which render it unconvincing as it stands.

First, the major problem with this argument is that the study, which is the only evidence provided by the author, lacks a lot of information that make it convincing. For instance, what procedure was used? How large was the sample? When was the study conducted? Do these people who take part in this study present all the masses? In addition, this study is based on the condition of day’s conversation, which concludes, in a sense, more sportful materials to the masses and the content of entertainment television program seems more appropriate for that compared with print media. Without better evidence, the arguer cannot rely on the study and draw any firm conclusion about people’s reference.

Second, the fact that people lay more emphasis on talking about fiction does not necessarily indicate that television industry are paid more attention to compared with reading industry. As we all know, print media contains a lot of other realms, such as, newspapers, magazines, records and academic paper, and so forth. Lacking such evidence, it is entirely possible that people inclined to other choices of reading industry and watching television is somehow less concerned by people. In addition, although they talking about television more times, that does not mean that people prefer television.

Thirdly, before I come to my conclusion, it is necessary to point out another flaw in the argument that those who wish to have a career as writers maybe can not get profitable even though they receive training and experience in television. Perhaps writer who works in a television program cannot gain much money that separated from the whole though the total amount of profit is enormous. Yet the author has not provided any evidence to substantiate this assumption. Without ruling out this other possible scenarios that might serve to effect the profitability of writers in television industry, the author’s suggestion seems unconvincing and useless.

To sum up, the evidence provided by the arguer is too weak to support his assertion and suggestion. To better evaluate the argument, he or she has to make the facets discussed above into account, that is, to conduct a complete and substantiate study about people’s preference and offer other evidence about how does the profits distribute and the writer in the television industry in fact gain.

hchoUID: 204567

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."

In this argument, the author concludes that the publishing and bookselling industries seems to get less profits compared with television industry and suggests that a future-writer should make more effort in training for television rather than for printing industry [原文简单重复，删]. However, the recommendation relies on a series of unsubstantiated assumption, which render it unconvincing as it stands. [不能当Main idea，会被判没有main idea的，虽然argument属于一种驳论，但main idea， ts是一定要有的]

First, the major problem with this argument is that the study, which is the only evidence provided by the author, lacks a lot of information that make it convincing [that后面改一下，歧义]. For instance, what procedure was used? How large was the sample? When was the study conducted? Do these people who take part in this study present [represent] all the masses? [一系列问句，精炼，赞] In addition, this study is based on the condition of day’s conversation, which concludes, in a sense, more sportful materials to the masses and the content of entertainment [entertaining] television program seems more appropriate for that [people to talk about] compared with print media [所以。。。你这段的结论是什么]. Without better evidence, the arguer cannot rely on the study and draw any firm conclusion about people’s reference. [最后一句明显抄模版，和前面论述的gap比较大，而且说实话这句话对你的论证没有任何意义]

Second [secondly,这里与其用first,secondly,thirdly，不如顺接一下上面的，否则感觉文章缺乏整体性，只是每段说明了各自的问题，却没有形成一个整体], the fact that people lay more emphasis on talking about fiction does not necessarily indicate that television industry are paid more attention to compared with reading industry. As we all know, print media contains a lot of other realms, such as, newspapers, magazines, records and academic paper , and so forth. Lacking such evidence [什么evidence，你用模版的痕迹很重阿], it is entirely possible that people inclined to other choices of reading industry and watching television is somehow less concerned by people [前半句没错，后半句有点强辞夺理，注意，即使是假设也有强辞夺理的可能性]. In addition [不是并列关系，应该是让步，即使。。。], although they talking about television more times, that does not mean that people prefer television. [没有证明，论证不严密]

Thirdly, before I come to my conclusion, it is necessary to point out another flaw in the argument [废话，一点用处都没有，而且很别扭] that those who wish to have a career as writers maybe can not get profitable [jobs] even though they receive training and experience in television [题中说接受为电视准备的training而不是printing的training，你说的是receive training in television不一定能找到好工作，那我就要问了，接受training in publishing会么？很有可能更找不到好工作，如果这样，那还是电视的training好些]. Perhaps [a] writer who works in a television program cannot gain much money that separated from the whole though the total amount of profit is enormous [1. 读不通，2. 为什么？没有证据支持你的论点，你的论证也会变得absurd and ungrounded]. Yet the author has not provided any evidence to substantiate this assumption [什么evidence，什么assumption。抄模版却忘了文章应有的逻辑性和连贯性，以及具体性，这是万万使不得的]. Without ruling out this other possible scenarios that might serve to effect the profitability of writers in television industry, the author’s suggestion seems unconvincing and useless. [又是套话，那些scenario?不说明你的文章和论证就没substantiated，最后的useless语气过重，容易被判感性思维超过理性思维]

To sum up, the evidence provided by the arguer is too weak to support his assertion and suggestion. To better evaluate the argument, he or she has to make [take] the facets discussed above into account, that is, to conduct a complete and substantiate study about people’s preference and offer other evidence about how does [从句用正常语序] the profits distribute and the writer in the television industry in fact gain.

先说一个比较严重的问题：抄模版。抄的很爽，很厉害，很严重，很明显。

我们到底用不用模版？完全不用是不可能的，但到底怎么用是非常重要的。模版不是用来凑字数的，模版中的句子用在文章中不能加强论证，明晰逻辑，有利结构那就是瞎用，乱用，错误的用，偷懒的用。

用模版一定要强调目的性，为什么我前面说了一大堆后要加一句模版上的话？它有什么作用？是不是能和前面的话联系得好？是不是简练？是不是具体？不是的话宁可用自己的话，也不要偷懒。

除此之外，文章的具体性是非常重要的，some scenarios, some possibilities，什么scenarios,什么possibilities,他们是什么，为什么都要论证清楚。

文章的论证也不是很深，很有力，说实话。第一次改你的文章，所以有点严厉，不过高标准严要求才能有更大的进步不是，何况我也曾犯过非常类似的毛病，当时如果有好心人给我指出，我就不用花这么大力气重考了。我们写argument一定要注重逻辑的严密性不是，否则我们的论证和题目有什么区别呢，不都成了错误的逻辑了么？

linda_zhengUID: 2124165

谢谢hcho的修改，改的很认真。
argu没写几篇，现在处于不写模版就不知道该说什么的地步，我本人也特别讨厌模版，但现在先用着，一点一点改。一定会改！
看了你的argu我才知道我少批了一个很重要的点，看来这篇要重写啦，以后会多向你学习的，呵呵

hchoUID: 204567

对模版一定要抱着批判继承的态度，刚开始可以套用，但最后你的风格成熟的时候一定要摆脱它，当然，有自己独创的模版也是很重要的，考场上时间很紧的说