Tpo19.1

The text and the lecture offer two opposing views on the trustworthiness of the buzzing and the necessities of its banning. While the text lists some factors as the main effects of the buzzing with negative outcomes, the lecturer counters these specific points and illustrates some evidences to call into question for the information in the reading passage.

First of all, the lecturer refutes the money as the motivation for misleading the people at the buzzing. Which in the reading part candidates as a main cause of the misguiding and presenting the false information about the products. The lecturer sake on his own buzzing experience states that the phone company hired him based on his satisfaction by phone usage. Although, he gains money by this way; he informs the customers based upon his experiences, satisfaction, and beliefs. That is how the lecturer casts doubt about this hypothesis accuracy.

Although the passage uses the surmise of the individuality of the buzzers as one of the reasons which leads buyer to have less critical attitude toward product, the lecturer doubts the truth of this claim. Based upon the buzzer’s experience, the customer who attends to buy the cellphone asks many questions such as its price, services, and how long does he use the product and if he could not be well responsible for their questions, the buyer avoids buying it.

Finally, the buzzer argues that buzzing enriches the socialization and makes the people to be more open to others. Meanwhile, the passage maintains the buzzer’s misleading causes the individuals to be suspicious of other’s trustworthiness and it can hurt the civilization, based on the lecturer's evidences if the company’s products do not meet the satisfaction’s level to convince the buyer, it will be difficult to hire the buzzer. Moreover, the main desire of each buzzer is the distributing of his decent experience as the people try the same feeling they become more trustful.