The reading passage and the lecture both discuss the kinds of strategy that is used for advertizment by a company, Buzzing. In the reading part, the author mentions that buzzering make variety of problems in the society; in the listening part, however, the speaker who is a buzzer challenges what thauthor states and rebutes the reasons.
To begin with, as mentioned in the article, the author sets forth that we expect true from people that speak with us and we should know whether a person is paid to give their opinion about the product or not. Nevertheless, in the listening part the speaker refutes the reasons asserting that the author probebly missleaded the point, a individual who is buzzering a good, he/she actually like the product and a company hire them based on this idea and they will tell us a truth and exact feeling about a product. There is no act on this like a actor who is paid to memorize lines and act for this. Therefor, you can trust to a buzzer.
Secondly, the author points out that we might accept a buzzer, if we do not know them about a labale for a decvice and it may harm a consumer by the claims. Nonetheless, the speaker flatly contradicts the idea and contends that consummers ask a variety of question and they have to answer them to persuad them to buy a thing, asd if they do not ansswer them complitly, they might reject them.
Finally, the author claims that it has negative effect on social interaction and relationship, because of the reducing trustworthy in society. In contrast, the lecturer is of the opinion that if a person love a product, for ecnstance, a cellfone device, they might advertize it and they speak based on experiment, hence they would be openly to the people.
The reading passage and the lecture both discuss the kinds of strategy
that is
used
for
advertizment
by a
company
, Buzzing. In the reading part, the
author
mentions that
buzzering
make
variety of problems in the society; in the listening part,
however
, the speaker who is a buzzer challenges what
thauthor
states and
rebutes
the reasons.
To
begin
with, as mentioned in the article, the
author
sets forth that we
expect
true from
people
that speak with
us and
we should know whether a person
is paid
to give their opinion about the
product
or not.
Nevertheless
, in the listening part the speaker refutes the reasons asserting that the
author
probebly
missleaded
the point,
a
individual who is
buzzering
a
good
, he/she actually like the
product
and a
company
hire them based on this
idea and
they will
tell
us a truth and exact feeling about a
product
. There is no act on this like
a
actor who
is paid
to memorize lines and act for this. Therefor, you can trust to a buzzer.
Secondly
, the
author
points out that we might accept a buzzer, if we do not know them about a
labale
for a
decvice
and it may harm a consumer by the claims. Nonetheless, the speaker
flatly
contradicts the
idea
and contends that
consummers
ask a variety of
question and
they
have to
answer them to
persuad
them to
buy
a thing,
asd
if they do not
ansswer
them
complitly
, they might reject them.
Finally
, the
author
claims that it has
negative
effect on social interaction and relationship,
because
of the reducing trustworthy in society.
In contrast
, the lecturer is of the opinion that if a person
love
a
product
, for
ecnstance
, a
cellfone
device, they might
advertize
it and
they speak based on experiment,
hence
they would be
openly
to the
people
.