In this memo, the author expresses the disadvantages of the change of the TV program, and he/she cites two facts that the coverage of weather and local news has received most complaints from viewers and that some local businesses have canceled their advertising on this program. However, both of the facts are so vague that cannot support the author's suggestion.
The author cites that most of the complaints from viewers were about the coverage of the weather and local news. And he/she supposes that all of the complaints indicate the discontentment with the decreased weather and local news. It is possible that some of viewers may dislike the increased national news, preferring weather and local news; but there is an equal possibility that most of the complainants are just about the quality of the weather and local news during the last year rather the decreased amount of it. Even though these complaints are concerning with the changed proportion of these news, the total number of the complainants is not clear. Maybe, the professed ‘most’ of the complaints are actually few for the number of the whole complaints is small, so the condition is not worse than that before the change. With these conditions unclear, making a survey about the number of the complaints and the complainants’ real ideas is necessary. Additionally, the author shows that some local businesses that used to advertise during the late-night news have canceled their contracts. Basing on the fact, he/she indicates these businesses’ canceling of their advertising contracts results from the program’s changing of the decreased proportion of the weather and local news. However, this indication is unacceptable because it is merely the author’s assumption and he/she has given no evidence to support it. There may be many reasons why these businesses do not continue the advertising contracts with this program. For example, they think they do not need any advertises in this period or prefer to advertise on the news papers for a chipper price maybe. Moreover, the author just take into account the some local businesses, thus ignoring businesses from other districts. How about these businesses? Maybe, after the change of the coverage of the weather and local news, more nonlocal businesses contract with the program which brings the television station more profits. Considering these complaints and less contracts with local businesses, the author suggests to expand the coverage of weather and local news on all other news programs. I think this advice is unreasonable not only because so many obscure conditions maintain but also because no detailed conditions of other programs are explicated. Different programs have different characteristics and may not befit for weather and local news. Some programs for children and some sports programs are examples. Unless a thorough survey concerning the characteristics of those programs and the opinions of the viewers is made and enough evidence supports the extension, the author’s proposal is unacceptable. In a nutshell, the facts given by the author is not as clear as a bell and cannot back up the suggestion, and even no evidence supporting the advised extension of the weather and local news. Considering this, we cannot make sure whether the change of the proportions of these news of the program is rational or not. Further, whether it is better to expand the coverage of the weather and local news to all the other programs is reputable. To settle the problems, we need a detailed survey which tells us what the viewers' real ideas about the change of the news and the local businesses' reasons for their canceling of the advertising contracts .作者: 竹林中人 时间: 2012-11-10 23:20 In this memo, the author expresses thedisadvantages of the change of the TV program, and he/she cites two facts thatthe coverage of weather and local news has received most complaints fromviewers and that some local businesses have canceled their advertising on thisprogram. However, both of the facts are so vague that cannotsupport the author's suggestion.
The author cites that most of the complaints fromviewers were about the coverage of the weather and local news. And he/shesupposes that all of the complaints indicate the discontentment with thedecreased weather and local news. It is possible that some of viewers maydislike the increased national news, preferring weather and local news; butthere is an equal possibility that most of the complainants are just about thequality of the weather and local news during the last year rather the decreasedamount of it. Even though these complaints are concerning with thechanged proportion of these news, the total number of the complainants is notclear. Maybe, the professed ‘most’ of the complaints are actually few forthe number of the whole complaints is small, so the condition is not worse thanthat before the change. With these conditions unclear, making a survey aboutthe number of the complaints and the complainants’ real ideas is necessary.
Additionally, the author shows that some localbusinesses that used to advertise during the late-night news have canceledtheir contracts. Basing onthe fact, he/she indicates these businesses’ canceling of their advertising contracts results from theprogram’s changing of the decreased proportion of the weather and local news. However, this indication is unacceptable because it is merely theauthor’s assumption and he/she has given no evidence to support it. Theremay be many reasons why these businesses do not continue the advertising contracts with thisprogram. For example, they think they do not need any advertises in thisperiod or prefer to advertise on the news papers for a chipper price maybe. Moreover, the author just takes into account the some local businesses,thus ignoring businesses from other districts. How about thesebusinesses? Maybe, after the change of the coverage of the weather andlocal news, more nonlocal businesses contractwiththe program which brings the television station more profits.
Considering these complaints and fewercontracts with localbusinesses, the author suggests expanding the coverage of weather and local news on all other news programs. I think this advice is unreasonable not only because so many obscureconditions maintain but also because no detailed conditions of other programsare explicated. Different programs have different characteristics and may notbefit for weather and local news. Some programs for children and somesports programs are examples. Unless a thorough survey concerning thecharacteristics of those programs and the opinions of the viewers is made andenough evidence supports the extension, the author’s proposal is unacceptable.
In a nutshell, the facts given by the author isnot as clear as a bell and cannot back up the suggestion, and even no evidencesupporting the advised extension of the weather and local news. Considering this, we cannot make sure whether the change of the proportionsof these news of the program is rational or not. Further, whether it isbetter to expand the coverage of the weather and local news to all the otherprograms is reputable. To settle the problems, we need a detailed surveywhich tells us what the viewers' real ideas about the change of the news andthe local businesses' reasons for their canceling of the advertising contracts. 文章内容很充实，但感觉有一点，ＬＺ需要注意，就是尽量把重点放在推翻题目的推理上，而不要过多指出其他的可能性，比如你谈到ｃｏｍｐｌａｉｎｔ的时候，你认为他的推理是怎么不合理的，没有考虑到什么因素，或者要有信服力，需要提供什么样的信息或者存在什么样的前提等等，并且能够具体的谈一点，然后再指出如果没有这些，便会怎么样怎么样。作者: 竹林中人 时间: 2012-11-10 23:20
ＬＺ很给力，相信会有很大进步作者: winnalegh 时间: 2012-11-11 10:43
就是说要写出原作者推理时的假设，然后写这些假设可能不成立或有其他情况，因此其结果不成立。是吗？ 我再去看看范文。 能在考前多多了解自己的不足真是太好了。谢谢！作者: 竹林中人 时间: 2012-11-11 17:21