"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."
My essay:
The author describes how KMTV, a local TV channel, is currently experiencing a decline in the number of sold advertising spots. To find out how to turn things around, the comparison is made with KOOP, a local TV channel from a neighboring town. At KOOP, sales have gone up and the author implies that this is due to the fact that KOOP changed its focus to farming issues. The author then argues that KMTV should do the same and start focusing on farming issues.
The author does have a promising case by making the comparison with KOOP. As he explains it, it is tempting to think that what works for KOOP, should also work for KMTV. Unfortunately, this line of argumentation leaves more questions than it answers. The author provides so little information, that it most certainly cannot be concluded that KMTV should in fact focus on farming issues to increase sales of advertising spots.
The first problem lies in the fact that the author implies that KMTV and KOOP can be compared. The reader is provided with no information at all that could provide information about why the two channels are similar. One problem could be on pricing differences. If KOOP has dramatically decreased its pricing, it is not surprising that their sales have increased. Another issue comes with the possibility that KOOP is a new and starting TV channel. While KMTV could have seen a decrease from 100 to 95 spots sold, KOOP could have increased from 10 to 15. While the former means a decrease of 5%, the latter is an increase of a whopping 50%.
The second problem is attached to the connection that the author makes between the fact that KOOP focuses on farming issues and the increase in advertising applications. This is connection that cannot be made without any further information. By implying that 'A' automatically leads 'B', the author makes a scientific statement that he doesn't support by any evidence. It could very well be that the increase in advertising applications is due to a different development in the town itself. The author is advised to provide further information that would elucidate whether focusing on farming issues will always increase sales.
The third problem lies in the fact that it is not illustrated to what extent the two towns can be compared. As it seems that when KOOP focused on farming issues, the advertising applications increased, it could well be that the town of KOOP is very much farming oriented. Whereas KMTV could for example be more focused on coal mining, to name something. Focusing on farming issues will not be the first choice, when you know that most viewers are interested in coal mining. The author should hence explain why farming issues are indeed popular in the town of KOOP, and compare the situations between the two towns. If indeed both towns are farmers and interested in farming issues, then it could be interesting to look further.
Concluding, the fact that the advertising applications of KOOP have increased is not necessarily a result of focusing on farming issues. The problems with the argument are circled around the fact that the author compares the situation of KOOP and KMTV without indicating whether this comparison is even possible. The author is hence advised to provide more detailed information about the situation of the channels, the towns, but most importantly, why focusing on farming issues potentially would lead to an increase of advertising applications.
My essay:
The author describes how KMTV, a local TV channel, is currently experiencing a decline in the number of sold advertising spots. To find out how to turn things around, the comparison is made with KOOP, a local TV channel from a neighboring town. At KOOP, sales have gone up and the author implies that this is due to the fact that KOOP changed its focus to farming issues. The author then argues that KMTV should do the same and start focusing on farming issues.
The author does have a promising case by making the comparison with KOOP. As he explains it, it is tempting to think that what works for KOOP, should also work for KMTV. Unfortunately, this line of argumentation leaves more questions than it answers. The author provides so little information, that it most certainly cannot be concluded that KMTV should in fact focus on farming issues to increase sales of advertising spots.
The first problem lies in the fact that the author implies that KMTV and KOOP can be compared. The reader is provided with no information at all that could provide information about why the two channels are similar. One problem could be on pricing differences. If KOOP has dramatically decreased its pricing, it is not surprising that their sales have increased. Another issue comes with the possibility that KOOP is a new and starting TV channel. While KMTV could have seen a decrease from 100 to 95 spots sold, KOOP could have increased from 10 to 15. While the former means a decrease of 5%, the latter is an increase of a whopping 50%.
The second problem is attached to the connection that the author makes between the fact that KOOP focuses on farming issues and the increase in advertising applications. This is connection that cannot be made without any further information. By implying that 'A' automatically leads 'B', the author makes a scientific statement that he doesn't support by any evidence. It could very well be that the increase in advertising applications is due to a different development in the town itself. The author is advised to provide further information that would elucidate whether focusing on farming issues will always increase sales.
The third problem lies in the fact that it is not illustrated to what extent the two towns can be compared. As it seems that when KOOP focused on farming issues, the advertising applications increased, it could well be that the town of KOOP is very much farming oriented. Whereas KMTV could for example be more focused on coal mining, to name something. Focusing on farming issues will not be the first choice, when you know that most viewers are interested in coal mining. The author should hence explain why farming issues are indeed popular in the town of KOOP, and compare the situations between the two towns. If indeed both towns are farmers and interested in farming issues, then it could be interesting to look further.
Concluding, the fact that the advertising applications of KOOP have increased is not necessarily a result of focusing on farming issues. The problems with the argument are circled around the fact that the author compares the situation of KOOP and KMTV without indicating whether this comparison is even possible. The author is hence advised to provide more detailed information about the situation of the channels, the towns, but most importantly, why focusing on farming issues potentially would lead to an increase of advertising applications.
