TPO19 (integrated)

In this sets of material, both the reading passage and the lecture discussed buzzers. The reading firmly stated that buzzing should be ban. However, the lecture repudiated what stated in the article resting upon fallacious premises and provides three counterclaims proofing that consumers could receive lots of important information from a buzzer.

Firstly, the reading passage argued that, as consumers know related companies are paying buzzers, they would not believe in their statements anymore. The lecture contradicted this point by acknowledging that actually companies find for people who used their products and think that the quality of the product is good, unlike the ordinary ways of advertisement, which paid celebrities in order to encourage people by a specific product.

Secondly, the article claimed that as buzzers pretend to be just private individuals, consumers do not pay enough attention to their endorsements. Notwithstanding, the student highlighted that completely the opposite of what claimed in the reading happens in reality. He pointed out that consumers usually ask many questions about the price, service, the duration of usage etc.

Lastly, the article contended that buzzers would destroy the civilization and social relationships among people. This seemed to be incorrect as explained in the lecture. The speaker articulated that since many people have trusted buzzers and experienced the good result from that consulting, it would help them to become more trustful in general.