Argument97

Argument 97  
  In this argument, the author advocates that television station KICK should revise its broadcast schedule to include more sports coverage so as to gain a larger audience share in their area and therefore increase profits of the company. The recommendation is based on a nationwide survey which reveals that a sizeable majority of men would prefer to additional sports programs on TV. In addition, the manager points out that after increasing its sports broadcasts, the television station WACK had its share of TV audience almost doubled. Without convincing evidence offered by the author, the line of reasoning is problematic for a couple of flaws.
     To begin with, the author commits a fallacy of misapplied generalization in concluding that a vast majority of television audience in the KICK area will equally be favor in sports programs simply because a favorable trend toward increasing audience has been indicated in a nationwide survey. The example cited, while suggestive in trends, is insufficient to warrant its conclusion. It's very likely that the made-up of population in KICK area is the case that the aged occupy the most, which is quite different from the average of nationwide. Thus, more sports coverage on TV might probably serve no good to KICK for increasing the share of its audience and its profits. Even worse, probably, the revise of its broadcast schedule might be in the opposite direction, in which event the manager's recommendation amounts to poor advice. In addition, the majority of men as respondents studied in the nationwide survey may not be presentative of the population as a whole, leaving the conclusion highly suspect and untenable. In that the television audience is constructed by the old and the young, men and women, who may have different interests and choices in TV programs. Therefore, unless the author provides more concrete evidence as how and where the survey is conducted, the statistical reliability and credibility is worthless as evidence for the conclusion.
   Another problem with the argument is a classic stance of "after this, therefore because of this". The only evidence provided for concluding that increasing its sports broadcasts in WACK causes a rising of TV audience in its share is the fact that the former preceded the latter. Yet, other factors which might bring about the same results should be taken into considerations before establishing a cause-effect relationship between these events. For example, if in WACK area holds a national sports competition when the survey is conducted, the share of its audience favor in sports programs during these days will be definitely on the large. It's also possible that the decreasing quality of other programs produced in WACK renders it undesirable for audience and as a result, most of whom would rather choose a sport broadcast as an alternative.
     Finally, the assumption that the company in KICK area will make more profits by the way of attracting more audience may be unconvincing .Since other factors , such as the audience construction in KICK area,  the quality of TV
program-producing, the contents of television program, and the advertising’ persuasive and informative communication with audience, may play a significant role for the company profit-making.  Thus, lacking information concerning about the crucial factors that would inevitably affect the company profits, we can't accept the author's poor recommendation.
    In the final analysis/ To sum up, in order to validate its conclusion, the author should offer more evidence to substantiate its assumption and provide more concrete information, such like ones about the statistical reliability in the nationwide survey,to rule out the possibilities that might undermine the author's claim.