In this set of materials, the writer strongly postulates that buzzing, as a form of personal advertising, shouldn't continue for its negative aspects, and provides three reasons to endorse this idea. On the other hand, the professor states that buzzing should continue for it's benefits, and gainsays each ot the arguments mentioned in the reading.
First and foremost, according to the author of the excerpt, when people don't know that someone is being paid to do publicity, the buzzers will most likely lie by giving consumers incorrect information and thus, they will be misled. Nonetheless, the lectures maintains that this isn't true, in view of the buzzer's previous personal experience that they have with the product, since companies would only hire people who regularly use the product and already love it, making everything the buzzer say true, which deviates from ordinary advertisement.
Next, the professor in the lecture further points out that customers don't believe everything they hear, on the contrary, they ask a lot of questions before their purchase, with things regarding price, service and longevity of the product, so, if buzzers don't know the answer, the consumer will not buy. These claims refute the writer`s implications that people are less critical, attentive and sharp minded when faced with buzzers, just because they do not know these people are advertising.
Ultimately, the article wraps his arguments by declaring that civilization would likely become affected as social interaction would suffer, as the lying of the buzzers would consequently generate mistrust in people. The speaker in the listening rebuts this point by insisting that this cannot happen, in result of the fact that if a company is selling a bad product, there wouldn't even be buzzers to promote it, after all they would only promote something they use, and that's why people would ultimately become more trustful and open towards others.
In this set of materials, the writer
strongly
postulates that buzzing, as a form of personal advertising, shouldn't continue for its
negative
aspects, and provides three reasons to endorse this
idea
.
On the other hand
, the professor states that buzzing should continue
for it's benefits
, and gainsays each
ot
the arguments mentioned in the reading.
First
and foremost, according to the author of the excerpt, when
people
don't know that someone is
being paid
to do publicity, the buzzers will most likely lie by giving consumers incorrect information and
thus
, they will
be misled
. Nonetheless, the lectures maintains that this isn't true, in view of the buzzer's previous personal experience that they have with the
product
, since
companies
would
only
hire
people
who
regularly
use
the
product
and already
love
it, making everything the buzzer say true, which deviates from ordinary advertisement.
Next
, the professor in the lecture
further
points out that customers don't believe everything they hear,
on the contrary
, they ask
a lot of
questions
before
their
purchase
, with things regarding price, service and longevity of the
product
,
so
, if buzzers don't know the answer, the consumer will not
buy
. These claims refute the
writer`s
implications that
people
are less critical, attentive and sharp minded when faced with buzzers,
just
because
they do not know these
people
are advertising.
Ultimately
, the article wraps his arguments by declaring that civilization would likely become
affected
as social interaction would suffer, as the lying of the buzzers would
consequently
generate mistrust in
people
. The speaker in the listening rebuts this point by insisting that this cannot happen, in result of the fact that if a
company
is selling a
bad
product
, there wouldn't even be buzzers to promote it,
after all
they would
only
promote something they
use
, and that's why
people
would
ultimately
become more trustful and open towards others.