第一次写。。。。发现400多字真的是好难。。。。挑了一篇老师上课讲过的文章来写，是Topic93，写了一个多小时。。。实在是菜鸟级别。。劳烦各位批评指点！求狠批！求指点！
Topic 93:是关于KMTVprogramming focus的。
题目：The following appeared in the editorial section of a local paper:
“Applications for advertising spots on KMTV, our local cable television channel, decreased last year. Meanwhile a
neighboring town’s local channel, KOOP, changed its focus to farming issues and reported an increase in advertising
applications for the year. To increase applications for its advertisement spots, KMTV should focus its programming on
farming issues as well.”
文章：
In this article, the speaker cited that in order to increase applications for advertisements, KMTV, the local cable television channel, should change its focus on farming issue. The speaker’s reason is that a neighboring town's local channel, KOOP, adjusted its concentration to farming issue and later reported an increase in advertisements applications for the year. So the speaker thought that this solution may be useful for KMTV as well. However, the speaker's argument suffers from several critical problems.
First and foremost, the conclusion the speaker drew is unreasonable. According to the speaker’s statement, he thought that the way to change in focus to farming issues is the only reason for KOOP's success. The only reason the speaker cited is that after KOOP's adjustment, he heard about the report of an increase in applications of advertisements of KOOP, in other word, he attributed the increase of advertisements to the change of program. Unfortunately, there may be other reason for the success of advertisements application. Eventually, it is possible that KOOP’s change in focus may not have been related to its increase in revenue in the manner required by the speaker’s argument.
In addition, the speaker suggested that it is available for KMTV to change on programming the farming issue since he assumed that the towns that KMTV and KOOP serve are sufficiently similar. However, it is groundless. Although KOOP and KMTV both are local television channel, there may be some vital differences between the two towns, which will surely affect the program they broad. The audience's preference, for example, may be one of them. If the place where KMTV served is a big city, the people their surely will not concentrated on farming affairs because it is far from their daily life. While KOOP serves the farming area where people show great interests in agriculture. For this consequence, the speaker's statement has been weakened.
Ultimately, the speaker cites that KMTV’s decrease in applications for advertising was due to its programming. Unfortunately, since the author provides no evidence to support his conclusion, it is also questionable. It may be that the decrease was caused by other factors, such as a depression of the economy in the local area or a narrow approach to promotion at the station. Without ruling out other possible causes the speaker cannot conclude confidently that the decrease in applications for advertisements was in the charge of KMTV’s programming.
In conclusion, the speaker's argument is fallacious doubtful. He should provide more evidence to make his argument more reasonable in advertisements applications and that KMTV's decrease in applications was due to its programming.-- by 会员 秋晨小仔 (2012/2/1 20:39:55)
第一次写。。。。发现400多字真的是好难。。。。挑了一篇老师上课讲过的文章来写，是Topic93，写了一个多小时。。。实在是菜鸟级别。。劳烦各位批评指点！求狠批！求指点！
Topic 93:是关于KMTVprogramming focus的。
题目：The following appeared in the editorial section of a local paper:
“Applications for advertising spots on KMTV, our local cable television channel, decreased last year. Meanwhile a
neighboring town’s local channel, KOOP, changed its focus to farming issues and reported an increase in advertising
applications for the year. To increase applications for its advertisement spots, KMTV should focus its programming on
farming issues as well.”
文章：
In this article, the speaker cited that in order to increase applications for advertisements, KMTV, the local cable television channel, should change its focus on farming issue. The speaker’s reason is that a neighboring town's local channel, KOOP, adjusted its concentration to farming issue and later reported an increase in advertisements applications for the year. So the speaker thought that this solution may be useful for KMTV as well. However, the speaker's argument suffers from several critical problems.
First and foremost, the conclusion the speaker drew is unreasonable. According to the speaker’s statement, he thought that the way to change in focus to farming issues is the only reason for KOOP's success. The only reason the speaker cited is that after KOOP's adjustment, he heard about the report of an increase in applications of advertisements of KOOP, in other word, he attributed the increase of advertisements to the change of program. Unfortunately, there may be other reason for the success of advertisements application. Eventually, it is possible that KOOP’s change in focus may not have been related to its increase in revenue in the manner required by the speaker’s argument.
In addition, the speaker suggested that it is available for KMTV to change on programming the farming issue since he assumed that the towns that KMTV and KOOP serve are sufficiently similar. However, it is groundless. Although KOOP and KMTV both are local television channel, there may be some vital differences between the two towns, which will surely affect the program they broad. The audience's preference, for example, may be one of them. If the place where KMTV served is a big city, the people their surely will not concentrated on farming affairs because it is far from their daily life. While KOOP serves the farming area where people show great interests in agriculture. For this consequence, the speaker's statement has been weakened.
Ultimately, the speaker cites that KMTV’s decrease in applications for advertising was due to its programming. Unfortunately, since the author provides no evidence to support his conclusion, it is also questionable. It may be that the decrease was caused by other factors, such as a depression of the economy in the local area or a narrow approach to promotion at the station. Without ruling out other possible causes the speaker cannot conclude confidently that the decrease in applications for advertisements was in the charge of KMTV’s programming.
In conclusion, the speaker's argument is fallacious doubtful. He should provide more evidence to make his argument more reasonable in advertisements applications and that KMTV's decrease in applications was due to its programming.-- by 会员 秋晨小仔 (2012/2/1 20:39:55)