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."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
Advertisement is a major source of revenue for the television cable channel. In the above argument the author states that Application for advertising spots decreased for the local cable television channel while it increased in the neighboring town's local channel after the channel changed the focus to farming issues. The author concludes that KMTV should also focus on farming issue to increase its advertisement spots. Even though the claim does have its merits, the author presents a poorly e reasoned argument based on several questionable premises and assumptions, and based solely on the evidence the author provides, we cannot accept his argument as valid.
Firstly, the author believes that KOOP change in focus to farming issues increased its advertising applications. But the author has not provided any information to validate this claim. The increase in advertising applications could be due to better marketing by the KOOP, KOOP been able to bag a highly rated show during its prime time etc. The argument will be stronger if the author can present some evidence which shows a relationship between the increased advertising applications and the change in focus to farming issue by KOOP.
Secondly the author assumes that the same strategy which worked for KOOP will also work for the local KMTV channel. The KOOP's move to farming issues could have worked out because in that neighboring town there are more number of farmers or because farming is the primary occupation there. If the town where KMTV has its presence is a town in which most of the residents are not interested in farming related issue the strategy of KMTV to focus on farming relates issues is going to backfire. If the author can provide more data or studies which prove that the same strategy will work for both KMTV and KOOP he can further strengthen is argument.
Finally the author assumes that a decrease in advertising spots is necessarily bad. It may well be the case that KMTV was overbooked in its advertising spots and the decrease in advertisement is spots is because the company which applied for spots realized that it would not get the spots it requires as its already booked and did not reapply again. The author's argument can be made stronger if it's proved that the decrease in advertising spots created some spots to be not booked at all.
In sum, the argument fails to convince that KMTV should focus on farming issue to increase its advertisement applications. Argument could be strengthened if it provides more evidence that an increased focus on farming issue was responsible for the advertisement spot increase for KOOP and that the same strategy can work for KOOP and KMTV. Also to bolster the argument the author can provide more details which prove that decreased applications caused some spots to free up in KMTV. Without these things the poorly reasoned argument will convince a few number of people.
Not sure if this is good enough for 4.5 or higher? Please do comment on how it can be improved.
Thanks
"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."
Discuss how well reasoned . . . etc.
Advertisement is a major source of revenue for the television cable channel. In the above argument the author states that Application for advertising spots decreased for the local cable television channel while it increased in the neighboring town's local channel after the channel changed the focus to farming issues. The author concludes that KMTV should also focus on farming issue to increase its advertisement spots. Even though the claim does have its merits, the author presents a poorly e reasoned argument based on several questionable premises and assumptions, and based solely on the evidence the author provides, we cannot accept his argument as valid.
Firstly, the author believes that KOOP change in focus to farming issues increased its advertising applications. But the author has not provided any information to validate this claim. The increase in advertising applications could be due to better marketing by the KOOP, KOOP been able to bag a highly rated show during its prime time etc. The argument will be stronger if the author can present some evidence which shows a relationship between the increased advertising applications and the change in focus to farming issue by KOOP.
Secondly the author assumes that the same strategy which worked for KOOP will also work for the local KMTV channel. The KOOP's move to farming issues could have worked out because in that neighboring town there are more number of farmers or because farming is the primary occupation there. If the town where KMTV has its presence is a town in which most of the residents are not interested in farming related issue the strategy of KMTV to focus on farming relates issues is going to backfire. If the author can provide more data or studies which prove that the same strategy will work for both KMTV and KOOP he can further strengthen is argument.
Finally the author assumes that a decrease in advertising spots is necessarily bad. It may well be the case that KMTV was overbooked in its advertising spots and the decrease in advertisement is spots is because the company which applied for spots realized that it would not get the spots it requires as its already booked and did not reapply again. The author's argument can be made stronger if it's proved that the decrease in advertising spots created some spots to be not booked at all.
In sum, the argument fails to convince that KMTV should focus on farming issue to increase its advertisement applications. Argument could be strengthened if it provides more evidence that an increased focus on farming issue was responsible for the advertisement spot increase for KOOP and that the same strategy can work for KOOP and KMTV. Also to bolster the argument the author can provide more details which prove that decreased applications caused some spots to free up in KMTV. Without these things the poorly reasoned argument will convince a few number of people.
Not sure if this is good enough for 4.5 or higher? Please do comment on how it can be improved.
Thanks
