Today, TV channels provide men's sport show more that women's sport show. Why is that? should TV channel give equal time for women's sport and men's sport.
TV channels in these days mainly broadcast men’s
sport show than women’s sport show. Someone can criticizes this tendency as a
sexual discrimination and insists the equal distribution of broadcasting time.
However, it is quite natural for the broadcasting companies to have more men’s
sport show than women's.
First of all, broadcasting companies are
clearly representing the needs of people. They need to attract as many people
as possible for their commercial benefit. Thus, TV show schedule is clearly
depicting the interests of people. (앞 문장과 의미차이가 없습니다.) Thus, more men’s sport shows on TV mean
that, men are more interested in the sport field than then women. For example, when
we look at the football, that makes huge commercial benefits in these days,
there are lots of male fans in the stadium than compared to female fans. Likewise, other
famous sport games which can drag people in front of TV shows are male friendly
sports like basketball, car racing and baseball. Thus, for TV companies,
putting more men’s sport shows on their channel is natural choice to be more
successful.
Secondly, some other TV shows are women friendly. That means, there is no need to criticize sports shows for the reason that they mainly present men’s sport show. For instance, a vast majority of cooking shows are women friendly. Adding to that, a large number of fashion channels are interested in women’s fashion than men’s. Thus, if someone wants to insist equal distribution of women’s sport shows on TV regardless of the interests of customers, he/she must answer to the question that, cooking and fashion TV shows must follow the strict equal distribution of time regardless of the interest of people.
To conclude,
more men’s sport shows on TV are the consequence of represented interests of
people. Thus, giving equal time for women’s sport shows can intervenes the
market economy without sound grounds.
총평: (7/6/7/6) 6.5
일단 내용+어휘는 깔끔합니다. 문법의 경우 근본적인 문제가 있는 것은 아니고, 다양성의 측면에서는 꽤나 높은 평가를 받을 수 있지만, 이에 비해 자잘한 오류가 많이 보이며, 이게 누적되어서 약간의 감점이 있었다고 보시면 돼요.
또한 현재 본론 두 문단은, 논제의 두 질문에 대한 답변을 하고있는 상황이죠. 그런데 이때, 두 질문은 성격이 전혀 달리 갑니다. 하나는 원인을 묻고 있는 것이고, 또 하나는 당위성을 묻고 있어요. 그런데 지금과 같이 둘을 비슷한 성격으로 인식해서 first second 로 작성할 경우 적절하지 않습니다. first second 는 하나의 질문에 대한 두 개의 이유를 들 때나 사용할 수 있으니까, 이에 유의해서 수정해주세요~수고하셨습니다 :)