The following is a memorandum from the business manager of a television station."Over the past year, our late-night news program has devoted increased time to national news and less time to weather and local news. During this time period, most of the comp

The increased coverage of national news by broadcasters has become a subject of wide interest and scrutiny in the United States as of late. There are those who dispute the fact that decreased coverage of local news has led to local advertisers cancelling their contracts and those who affirm it. There are those who assert that the decrease in coverage has also led to a decrease in quality, and there are those who believe that local businesses have merely suffered from the country's recession. In the preceding statement, the author ineffectively argues that restoring the time devoted to weather and local news to its former level will bring back local advertisers.

Though the claim may well have merit, the author presents a poorly reasoned argument based on several questionable premises and assumptions that do not hold up under a higher level of scrutiny. Based solely on the evidence at hand, we cannot accept this argument to be valid.

The elementary concern with the author's reasoning lies in his unsubstantiated assumptions. Apart from failing to provide a tangible correlation between the businesses refusing to advertise and the decrease in local coverage, the author never provides any evidence for his claim that restoring the previous order would result in the return of said businesses. The author effectively undermines his argument by failing to expand on the links between increased national coverage and local businesses cancelling their advertising contracts he claims exist.

In addition to relying on unfounded hypotheses, the author camouflages his lack of irrefutable evidence by equivocating throughout his argument. The key to understanding what has caused businesses to retreat lies in the complaints that were sent in during the time period in question. By not providing the contents of the correspondence, it is impossible to confirm that this was the sole cause of the problem. The use of ambiguous language guarantees that both the scope and validity of the argument remain unclear.

Notwithstanding the dubious information and logical fallacies, the argument is not completely untenable. If local vendors have moved their business to another television station, it would stand to reason they were not seeing eye to eye with their former network's message and strategy. Furthermore, the television station's pricing system would have to be studied thoroughly in order to properly draw any conclusions. We cannot assume that businesses have abandoned a network based on content alone. It is perfectly reasonable to argue that a decrease in coverage has led to an increase in price for advertising at specific times in the programming schedule. Even though the author's reasoning at present proves problematic, he could further strengthen his argument by conducting more extensive research and addressing several inconsistencies.

In summary, the author's fallacious reasoning is built upon baseless premises and assumptions that render his conclusion as is proves invalid. By failing to address any changes in advertising cost and not observing competing networks, the conclusion proves unsatisfactory and renders the research devoid of legitimate evidence. If the author hopes to present a strong case on the issue, he should restructure his argument and provide clear evidentiary support. Without these revisions, his viewpoint will mostly be negated.