While the reading passage presents three problems of television addiction, the speaker claims that these problems can be solved by corresponding solutions.
The reading passage indicates that television addicts usually cannot get along with other people because they are unable to focus on conversations or their works. However, the speaker says that this argument is somewhat shortsighted. The lecturer implies that since people get stressed from their job, they need to get rid of stress and flesh their head by watching television. According to the speaker, then, the evidence presented in the reading passage does not sound plausible.
The reading passage also purports that if addicts are prohibited from watching television, they become more unstable when considering their erratic status and less concentration. This might be true in some aspects, but the speaker insists that they could feel depressed when something is taken away from them. However, it does not mean that they are addicted to it. Accordingly, the speaker also casts doubt on the second point of the reading passage.
Finally, the reading passage points out that television addicts may be irresponsible in that they cannot stop watching television. However, the speaker suggests that the meaning of addiction is very narrow which can be used only when something is unable to control and causing harm. Thus, since watching television is not harmful, it does not mean that they are addicted to television. As the speaker points out, therefore, it is not proper to say that the last piece of evidence is substantiated.
In summary, the lecturer casts doubt on television addiction, which was explained in the reading passage. |