In addition, the author assumes that the towns that KMTV and KOOP serve are sufficiently similar to warrant a conclusion based on an analogy between them. Even if we accept the view that KOOPs change in programming focus to farming issues was responsible for its increase in advertising applications, differences between the towns could drastically alter the outcome for KMTV. For example, if KMTV serves a metropolitan area with little interest in agriculture, changing its programming focus to farming issues would most likely be disastrous. Lacking information about the towns KOOP and KMTV serve it is difficult to assess the authors recommendation.
Finally, the author assumes that KMTVs decrease in applications for advertising was due to its programming. However, since the author provides no evidence to support this assumption, it may be that the decrease was caused by other factors, such as recession in the local economy or transmission problems at the station. Without ruling out these and other possible causes the author cannot confidently conclude that KMTVs programming was responsible for the decrease in advertising applications at hat station.
In conclusion, the authors argument is unconvincing. To strengthen the argument the author would have to provide additional evidence for the claim that KOOPs change in focus was responsible for its increase in advertising applications and that KMTVs decrease in applications was due to its programming. Furthermore, it would be necessary to show that the towns that KOOP and KMTV serve are sufficiently similar to justify the analogy between them.
【GMAT考试写作例文224篇连载(九三)】相关文章:
最新
2016-03-02
2016-03-02
2016-03-02
2016-03-02
2016-03-02
2016-03-02