Writing Task

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

newbie_tw@yahoo.com.tw - 16 Nov 2006 17:27 GMT

I keep practicing my writing and hope someone could give me advice.

I appreciate any commentary. Thank you.

========== writing beg ==========

Question:

Compare the advantages and disadvantages of three of the following as
media for communicating information. State which you consider to be the
most effective.

· comics

· books

· radio

· television

· film

· theatre

Response:

As the technology keeps evolution, many innovative products have been
invented to improve the quality of our life, such as television, film
and so on. Those novelties create a fashion for communicating
information. Therefore, gradually it becomes a consensus that those
media, outweighing traditional one, e.g. books, should be prime and the
better choice for us and next generations. In contrast, it poses
problems after its prevelance.

The primary problem is it does not provide in-depth viewpoints when
information conveyed. Although some television channels brocast high
quality content to its audience, such as BBC, Discovery and so on, many
others cannot make programmes with better quality control because
earning profit usually is the primary concern of companies. Therefore,
many soap shows become mainstream. Moreover, the content brocasted by
those media would not impress its audience; and information would be
quickly removed out of their mind. Thus, they ought not be effective
for communicating information.

Conversely, traditional medium such as books, without any special
effect, does transform its thesis directly to the readers. As Mortimer
J. Adler, the author of "How to read a book", had referred - the reader
have to overcome the inequality in understanding; and after that
equality is approached, the clarity of communication is achieved. In
effect, the simpler the better. Only when information conveyed without
interrupted by redundancy, the reader is able to concentrate on the
concepts that the writer want to address. Therefore, it should be more
effective than previous one.

Though it does not mean the communicating information through film and
television are useless, what more we need to consider deliberately is
whether or not the information intended to be conveyed has been
successfully transformed.

========== writing end ==========

Reply to this Message

Eric Schwartz - 16 Nov 2006 18:26 GMT

> I keep practicing my writing and hope someone could give me advice.

My main advice would be to make sure your conclusions are supported by
evidence. You tend to mention several facts, then state a conclusion
as if it were supported by those facts, which it generally isn't.

For instance:

> The primary problem is it does not provide in-depth viewpoints when
> information conveyed.

What does not provide in-depth viewpoints? If you mean TV, you should
say so here. If you mean something else, you should say so. Don't
use "it" until you've first mentioned what "it" is.

Also, your sentence should read "... when conveying information." Of
course, you have the problem that you're not discussing what *sort* of
information you're talking about, but since your original statement
didn't either, I suppose it's not worth getting annoyed about.

> Although some television channels brocast high
> quality content to its audience, such as BBC, Discovery and so on, many
> others cannot make programmes with better quality control because
> earning profit usually is the primary concern of companies.

You seem to assume that the Discovery Channel isn't interested in
making a profit-- I assure you, they are. So right there, you have
contradicted your apparent conclusion that low-quality television is
caused by companies concerned primarily with profit. In fact, many
high-quality television programs are made by companies primarily
concerned with profit. If you wish to prove otherwise, you should at
least provide some evidence for this assertion.

> Therefore, many soap shows become mainstream.

Again, this conclusion is not supported by the rest of your paragraph.
You seem to be saying that soap shows become mainstream because
companies that make them cannot afford to make better ones. The
problem is, you have not shown that such a condition makes them
mainstream. I would contend that things become mainstream because
that's what people watch, which has no relationship to how expensive
the shows are to produce.

> Moreover, the content brocasted by those media would not impress its
> audience;

What content would that be? Also, you use 'media' as a plural, but
then use 'its' to refer to the audicence for the various media.
Either use a singular media, which is not appropriate in this case, or
use 'their' in place of 'its'.

> and information would be quickly removed out of their mind.

By whom? How is this information removed?

> Thus, they ought not be effective for communicating information.

Who aren't effective? The media? The audience?

I could go on, but I don't have time, or frankly, interest to do so.
Basically, you are thinking too fast for your paper. You write as if
you find out A, then you realized A implies B, which implies C, which
implies D, and so you write "A, therefore D". You have to show all
the intermediate steps of your thinking, or it just reads as if you
wrote down some random things and stated a conclusion for no reason at
all.

-=Eric

Reply to this Message

Discussion Groups / English Usage / November 2006

Writing Task