Argument220 限时失败，请大家帮忙看看 谢谢！回拍请留下链接，

Archer1123UID: 206148

Argument 220. 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."
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。
1.        研究的可靠性科学性
2.        小说只是书籍的一种
3.        提到的频率高不能代表盈利高，电视行业盈利高不表示为电视写作的作家收入高
4.        忽略了职业应该考虑兴趣以及以后的发展

In the article, based on a study and assumption the author gives advice to people who wish to be writers that their writing training and experience should shift from print media to television. The article is well-presented, however it suffers from several serious logical fallacies.

To begin with, the study on which the author based to make an assumption is too vague to be informative. The author does not provide any information about the way the study was conducted and how well it’s result represented the whole condition. Perhaps most of responders of the study are children or people without literacy. It is possible that the study is restricted within an extraordinarily small region. It is also possible that the study is conducted when one pop program is televising and people just high on discussing it. Any of above circumstances would weaken the reliability of study since it cannot represent the true and whole condition.

Furthermore, even though we could concede that people make reference to watching television more frequently than reading fictions, the author cannot expand into whole published and books. How about the conditions of magazine, the newspaper, the periodical and other books except fictions? Possibly, people mentioned reading these more frequently than watching television. It the author cannot rule out the likelihood, it is hard and even impossible for us to accept the assumption, accordingly the author has difficulty into persuading people who wish to be writers to change their training and experience from for television industry to for the traditional publishing industry.   

Additionally, the author makes a mistake deduction that more frequently people reference means higher profit. The profit is influenced by host of factors, the investment, the cost, the expense and the revenuer, and the like. The author fails to give a direct relationship between the mentioned frequency and interests. And the author does not provide any comparison about the profit between television industry and publishing or bookselling industries. It is high possible that former is less profitable in that its cost is tremendous. Moreover, even if the profit in television is high, it does not guarantee writers who work for Television industry could draw a large income. Not in a dissimilar way, the smaller profit of publishing and bookselling do not indicated the real income of writers are also lower.

Last but not least, the author omits the significance of the interest and future development when it comes to careers. The profit is not the unique factor influencing on the choice of careers. We cannot rule out the possibility that some people are willing to write for published industry rather than television one because they are interested in and enjoy it. It is also possible that some people prefer to choose published industry than television industry since they believe the former could bring them greater progress and more brilliant tomorrow even if it cannot afford the higher profit than the latter.

To sum up, based on what discussed above, it is obvious that the author’s advice is misleading and ungrounded. To make it more believable, the author should provide a scientific and convincing evidence to prove that writers who work for television industry have a higher income than those for publishing industry. Simultaneously, the advice should be pondered combining with personal interest and developmental plan.

TARZAN_1982UID: 2142821

In the article, based on a study and assumption the author gives advice to people (advises people)who wish to be writers that their writing training and experience should shift from (好像并没有承认他们已经在PRINT MEDIA工作啊)print media to television. The article is well-presented, however it suffers from several serious logical fallacies.

To begin with, the study on which the author based to make an assumption ](删掉会不会好一点)is too vague to be informative. The author does not provide any information about the way the study was conducted and how well it’s result represented the whole condition. Perhaps most of responders of the study are children or people without literacy(这个我可没想到,挺好的). It is possible that the study is restricted within an extraordinarily small region. It is also possible that the study is conducted when one pop program is televising and people just high on discussing it. Any of above circumstances would weaken the reliability of study since it cannot represent the true and whole condition.

Furthermore, even though we could concede that people make reference to watching television more frequently than reading fictions, the author cannot expand into whole published and books. How about the conditions of magazine, the newspaper, the periodical and other books except fictions? Possibly, people mentioned reading these more frequently than watching television. Itf the author cannot rule out the likelihood, it is hard and even impossible for us to accept the assumption, accordingly the author has difficulty into persuading people who wish to be writers to change their training and experience from for television industry to for the traditional publishing industry.   

Additionally, the author makes a mistaken deduction that more frequently people reference means higher profit. The profit is influenced by host of factors, the investment, the cost, the expense and the revenuer, and the like?什么意思呀. The author fails to give a direct relationship between the mentioned frequency and interests. And the author does not provide any comparison about the profit between television industry and publishing or bookselling industries. It is high possible that former is less profitable in that its cost is tremendous. Moreover, even if the profit in television is high, it does not guarantee writers who work for Television industry could draw a large income. Not in a dissimilar way, the smaller profit of publishing and bookselling do not indicated the real income of writers are also lower.

Last but not least, the author omits the significance of the interest and future development when it comes to careers. The profit is not the unique factor influencing on the choice of careers. We cannot rule out the possibility that some people are willing to write for published industry rather than television one不要这个词吧 because they are interested in and enjoy it. It is also possible that some people prefer to choose published industry than television industry since they believe the former could bring them greater progress and more brilliant tomorrow even if it cannot afford the higher profit than the latter.

To sum up, based on what discussed above, it is obvious that the author’s advice is misleading and ungrounded. To make it more believable, the author should provide a more scientific and convincing evidences to prove that writers who work for television industry have a higher income than those for publishing industry. Simultaneously, the advice should be pondered combining with personal interest and developmental plan.

我的能力有限啊，多多包涵，用你的话说有问题我们再讨论，感觉写的还是可以的，我现在很难能够在规定的时间里写完，思路就得想一会，有没有什么办法解决啊，支一招呗！另外有时间也帮我改改，谢谢！
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=409843&page=1&extra=page%3D1#pid1768124429

[ 本帖最后由 TARZAN_1982 于 2006-2-17 15:44 编辑 ]

Archer1123UID: 206148

谢谢先
In the article, based on a study and assumption the author gives advice to people (advises people)who wish to be writers that their writing training and experience should shift from (好像并没有承认他们已经在PRINT MEDIA工作啊)确实没有考虑周到，谢谢提醒，呵呵print media to television. The article is well-presented, however it suffers from several serious logical fallacies.

To begin with, the study on which the author based to make an assumption (删掉会不会好一点) 接受意见is too vague to be informative. The author does not provide any information about the way the study was conducted and how well it’s result represented the whole condition. Perhaps most of responders of the study are children or people without literacy(这个我可没想到,挺好的). It is possible that the study is restricted within an extraordinarily small region. It is also possible that the study is conducted when one pop program is televising and people just high on discussing it. Any of above circumstances would weaken the reliability of study since it cannot represent the true and whole condition.

Furthermore, even though we could concede that people make reference to watching television more frequently than reading fictions, the author cannot expand into whole published and books. How about the conditions of magazine, the newspaper, the periodical and other books except fictions? Possibly, people mentioned reading these more frequently than watching television. Itf the author cannot rule out the likelihood, it is hard and even impossible for us to accept the assumption, accordingly the author has difficulty into persuading people who wish to be writers to change their training and experience from for television industry to for the traditional publishing industry.   

Additionally, the author makes a mistaken deduction that more frequently people reference means higher profit. The profit is influenced by host of factors, the investment, the cost, the expense and the revenuer, and the like?什么意思呀.就是等等，应该和etc.差不多吧 The author fails to give a direct relationship between the mentioned frequency and interests. And the author does not provide any comparison about the profit between television industry and publishing or bookselling industries. It is high possible that former is less profitable in that its cost is tremendous. Moreover, even if the profit in television is high, it does not guarantee writers who work for Television industry could draw a large income. Not in a dissimilar way, the smaller profit of publishing and bookselling do not indicated the real income of writers are also lower.

Last but not least, the author omits the significance of the interest and future development when it comes to careers. The profit is not the unique factor influencing on the choice of careers. We cannot rule out the possibility that some people are willing to write for published industry rather than television one不要这个词吧 当时是考虑到省略了industry，所以用一个one代替because they are interested in and enjoy it. It is also possible that some people prefer to choose published industry than television industry since they believe the former could bring them greater progress and more brilliant tomorrow even if it cannot afford the higher profit than the latter.

To sum up, based on what discussed above, it is obvious that the author’s advice is misleading and ungrounded. To make it more believable, the author should provide a more scientific and convincing evidences to prove that writers who work for television industry have a higher income than those for publishing industry. Simultaneously, the advice should be pondered combining with personal interest and developmental plan.

我的能力有限啊，多多包涵，别谦虚，反正狠狠拍就好，呵呵用你的话说有问题我们再讨论，感觉写的还是可以的，我现在很难能够在规定的时间里写完，思路就得想一会，有没有什么办法解决啊，支一招呗！我现在也是处在这种状况下，先看题目，慢慢思考N久才正式开始写，即使这样在思路已经清晰的情况下，还是要超时，真不知道真正考试时该如何办？呜呜……目前看来好像只有熟悉题库，多练习吧，不是办法的办法 另外有时间也帮我改改，谢谢！你的我已经修改了，请查看

[ 本帖最后由 Archer1123 于 2006-2-18 10:00 编辑 ]