Argument 220, my 1st argument posted. THX for giving some feedbacks~

TOPIC: ARGUMENT220 - 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.”
WORDS: 365 TIME: 00:30:00 DATE: 27/9/2010 12:05:05 AM

The arguer concludes that people should choose writer in writing for television over for print media. To bolster his argument, he only cites a study which regarding to people refered more watching television than reading fiction in their daily conversation. The conclusion seems somewhat reasonable in the first glimpse, but after closed scrutiny I found it suffers several fallacies and flaws that undermine its inference.

First of foremost, the threshold problem of this argument lies on the study which the arguer refers. Common senses tell me that there are totally not relevant between people’s references in daily conversation and people preference. Aside from the reliability of the study I highly cast doubt on, especially the whole design of the study and implementation, the arguer accomplish nothing toward his/her conclusion that the print media industries are less profitable eventhough, in fact, people refer more about watching television than reading fiction. Far more than possible that people do like to refer reading television program in somehow reason, yet they still love to read book and even buy book without referring it in quotidian conversation. Obviously they are two not mutually exclusive people habitual action. In addition, fiction only is a tiny proportion in the bookselling and publishing industries, fictions may not popular but demands of magazines, newspapers and others printing may enjoy a surge. Consequently, merely according to the study, the arguer’s assumption about book and publishing industries will be in a stagnancy is specious and unwanted; at least, not based on the complete and convincing evidence.

Secondly, granted that the print media industries somehow decline in profitability. I still dont agree with writers need to choose writing for television rather than for print media. Notoriously, most of the profits in these both industries wont go to the writers but the directors, editors, investors, shareholders and so forth. Perhaps, even though the profitability of two industries have great difference, the paids to writers are almost the same. Furthermore, commonsensebly, the skills and experiences in print media are very basic and fundamental for writers in any field even though in television industries, if writers don’t serve in book writing they may choose e-book writing or radio/movie script writing, not necessary to get involve in television industries. Every people has his/her own talent upon one field, the suggestion about all writers should write for television is dubious and illogic.

In sum, to best evaluate this argument, I suggest the arguer provide the detail study about both television and print industries, particularly others printing status should be presented. Furthermore, the info and data in term of the salaries, skills and career preferences of writers in both industries are appreciated.