|
还有这篇AA也是时间满满的写完的，同样错字不少，帮我评评吧
还有我只有两周多的时间了，现在是不是应该主攻黄金80题和本月JJ，去年9月的AWA要看吗？
13. The following appeared as part of a campaign to sell advertising time on a local radio station to local businesses.
According to the article, the author recommends the readers to advertise on the radio in order to boost the business. To corroborate his claim, he cites the example of Cumquat Cafe (CC) which advertised on local radio and has experienced a increase in business. Thus he concludes that all the business can get such increase through the same way. At the first glance, the author's argument seems somehow appealing, while a close examination will reveal how groundless it is. At least four kinds of fallacies are embedded in it.
The threshold problem with the argument is vested interests. We have abundant reasons to question the creditability and neutrality of the author's recommendation for it's beneficial to the author himself thus he may prone to take the position of his own advantage.
Furthermore, the author commits a fallacy of " Com hoc, ergo propter hoc" in assuming advertising on the radio is the sole reason behind CC's increase in business. The mere positive relation doesn't suffice the casual relationship between them, other possible explanations should be find out and eliminated. For example, the increase may totally due to a economic boom this year and is little effected by the Ads. The author's failure to investigate or even considerate the other possible explanations render the recommendation based on it highly suspect.
Additionally, the author assumes CC is analogous to all the other business. However, it's not necessarily the case. Different business possesses different traits thus they fit different kind of Ads. For instance, if A store is a cloth store then the radio Ads is entirely useless for when purchase people pay more attention to the color the style or even will try the cloth at store, no one will listen to the radio and then decide to buy the clothe in A.
Even if all the above are granted to be true, the argument is still gratuitous for it based on a questionable assumption that all the background situation will remain stable in the future which is highly groundless. No one can predicate what will happen in the future, it's entirely possible with the prevalence of TV and internet, fewer and fewer people will listen to radio thus make the radio advertising totally useless. Lacking the information about the future trend, author's recommendation is meaningless.
To sum up, falling to considerate the whole situation comprehensively jeopardizes the argument thus leave the recommendation open to aggression. To make it more logically acceptable, the author should provide more concrete evidence, such as the analysis of future market or the detailed information about feasibility of different business to the radio advertising and so on, to rule out the vulnerable ambiguities embedded in the argument.
[此贴子已经被作者于2005-9-9 7:47:03编辑过] | 
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2005-9-8 22:48:00
