Argument220【0906G背水一战三月小组】第二次作业 thanks yunfeiyang4ever

kl1130UID??2329618

argue 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."


第一，统计问题，不科学
第二，不支持结论，哪个行业利润高是和从业人数，收益相关的
第三，不一定二选一，可以做别的写作行业
In this analysis, the arguer attempts to convince us that writing in television industry is more profitable, and that people pursuing to be a writer should acquire training and experience in writing for television rather than for print media. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer provides the evidence that an average of 23 references to watching TV and only 1 reference to reading fiction. This argument is also based on the assumption that the conversation is reasonable and correct. As it stands, the argument is vulnerable in several aspects as follows.

The survey on which the argument depends is statistically unreliable. Lacking the information about the number and kinds of respondents, it is impossible to assess the validity of the result. For example, if it only investigates the house wives, the result is quite reasonable but makes no contribution to the conclusion. The number of the respondents should also be seriously considered to minimum the deviation. Moreover, the time scale is also related to the results, a typical day is not obviously enough. One should pick out several days that really make sense to touch different kinds of people.
Even we assume that the survey is convincible. The arguer fails to establish a causal relationship between the fact that less book readers than TV watchers, and then claim that writers in television industry will be more profitable. It is extremely probable that other factors contribute to the profit of writers. For example, if the number of competition writers in TV industry in much more than that of in book industry, the TV industry is not necessary more profitable. I argue that the salary of income level of different career should be investigated, so as to make a fair relation with the number of readers or watchers.
In addition, the arguer also commits an either-or fallacy that writers should choose between the TV industry and print media. Though, we can find more chances for writers in other field, like stage and poster. An important point ignored by the arguer is that some programs in TV come from the fiction, which means there is no interference between them to some extent.
To sum up, the conclusion lacks credibility in that the evidence cited in the argument lends little support to what the arguer maintains. To strengthen the argument, the arguer should provide more valid evidence concerning that the profit of both fields, and that the number of writers in each area. To better evaluate the argument, we need more specific information regarding that a reasonable survey result.