Netizen 1: Since AI anchors can simulate real anchors, then AI anchors can definitely replace real anchors. ——The error in the argument is: being simulated may not necessarily lead to being replaced.
Netizen 2: AI anchors can use big data to analyze the aesthetic needs of the audience and change their appearance at any time, so AI anchors have more advantages than real anchors. —— From the point of view of Netizen 2, having a more aesthetically pleasing appearance is just an advantage. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that AI anchors have advantages over real-person anchors. Netizen 2’s remarks are generalizations.
Netizen 3: According to statistics, last week the average ratings of news programs hosted by an AI anchor on a TV station were as high as 5%, while the average ratings of food programs hosted by human hosts were only 1%. This shows that the audience prefers AI anchors. ——Netizen 3’s view is that based on the fact that the average ratings of AI anchors’ news programs are higher than the average ratings of human anchors’ food programs, it can be concluded that the audience prefers AI anchors. The ratings can only mean that they are more concerned, but they do not mean that they are more liked. Netizen 3’s remarks are confusing concepts. For netizen 3, (Are there any hot news events happening during the broadcast of the food program? What was the average ratings of news programs before using AI anchors? Are there differences in the production level and broadcast period of the two TV programs? ) These three issues are all important to Netizen 3’s argument. Because if a hot news event occurs during the broadcast of a food program, it may distract the audience who originally wanted to watch the food program, thereby affecting the program ratings; if the average ratings of news programs are higher than 5% before using AI anchors, it means that The higher average ratings of news programs may not be because the audience likes AI anchors; if the average ratings of news programs are lower than 5% before using AI anchors, it means that the average ratings of news programs are as high as 5%. It may be because Audiences like AI anchors. But for the question (How many viewers watched both news programs and food programs?), it has nothing to do with the argument of 3?, because no matter how many viewers watched both news programs and food programs, the AI ??anchor’s news program The ratings are still higher than those of food programs hosted by real people.
Netizen 4: The achievements of technological development have had a huge impact on the news industry, and AI anchors are the achievements of technological development. Therefore, AI anchors have had a huge impact on the news industry. —— According to Netizen 4, the scientific and technological development achievements are a collective concept. The AI ??anchor is just an individual that makes up this concept and cannot represent the scientific and technological development achievements as a whole, which is a confusing concept.
Netizen 5: Unexpectedly, Netizen 2 actually thinks that AI is better than humans. Isn’t AI created by humans? ——Netizen 5’s point of view shows that AI created by humans will not be better than humans. The statement is too absolute and is not a generalization.
2. Currently, a certain city has issued regulations prohibiting the breeding of large dogs in urban areas, including those with gentle temperaments. Some experts believe that keeping large, gentle dogs in urban areas may still pose a threat to the personal safety of others, but others hold different views. They each put forward their own opinions (among them, only No. 3, No. 7, and *** can support the expert opinions.):
No. 1: According to statistics, from 2018 to 2021, our city The number of citizens who received rabies vaccinations due to dog bites were 15,600, 15,700, 16,300 and 16,500 respectively. Among them, more than 3,000 people suffer grade three exposure injuries every year, and this number is increasing year by year. —— This item shows that the number of citizens bitten by dogs in the city is increasing year by year. It is unclear whether any of the dogs that bit citizens are large dogs with a gentle temperament. It is impossible to know whether it is still possible to raise large dogs with a gentle temperament in urban areas. It will pose a threat to the personal safety of others and is an unclear option.
No. 2: Even those large dogs with gentle temperaments often bark, disturbing others' rest. —— This item indicates that large dogs with gentle temperaments will bark and disturb others' rest. It has nothing to do with whether these dogs may still pose a threat to the personal safety of others and is an irrelevant item.
No. 3: There are news reports that a resident of our city was bitten by his own large dog Labrador, and this pet dog is usually very gentle in temperament. —— This item explains that some citizens have been bitten by their own large dogs with a gentle temperament. It provides an example that raising large dogs with a gentle temperament in urban areas may still pose a threat to the personal safety of others and can be strengthened.
No. 4: Most of the people who support this legislation are people who hate large dogs. ——This item shows that most people who support this law are people who hate large dogs. It has nothing to do with the argument. It is an irrelevant item and cannot be strengthened.
No. 5: Correct feeding methods can effectively prevent large dogs from hurting people. ——This item explains that correct feeding methods can effectively prevent large dogs from hurting people. It has nothing to do with the argument. It is an irrelevant item and cannot be strengthened.
No. 6: If large dogs with gentle temperaments may pose a threat to the personal safety of others and are prohibited from being kept in urban areas, then all animals that may pose a threat to the personal safety of others should be prohibited from being kept in urban areas . ("If large dogs in residents' homes are banned, then all large dogs, including military dogs and police dogs, must be banned" is similar to the logical structure of No. 6. - This argument is: large dogs The ban on dogs means that all large dogs are banned; the argument of No. 6 is: some large dogs (i.e. animals) that may threaten the personal safety of others are banned, which means that all animals with a gentle temperament that may threaten the personal safety of others are banned. Both are part of the introduction) - This statement states that if large, gentle dogs are prohibited from being kept in urban areas because they may pose a threat to human safety, then other similar animals should also be prohibited from being kept in urban areas, just pointing out this ban. It may be unreasonable, and it does not explain whether keeping a large dog with a gentle temperament in an urban area may still pose a threat to the personal safety of others. It has nothing to do with the argument, is an irrelevant item, and cannot be strengthened.
No. 7: Golden retrievers are large dogs with a gentle temperament. They are very intelligent and can be easily tamed. However, cases of golden retrievers hurting people still occasionally occur in our city every year. ——This item explains that cases of mild-tempered golden retrievers occasionally causing injuries to people in the city every year. It illustrates that raising large dogs with a gentle temperament in urban areas may still pose a threat to the personal safety of others and can be strengthened.
No. 8: After a certain city introduced a regulation banning the breeding of aggressive dogs, the annual number of dog-injury incidents dropped significantly. ——This item explains that the incidents of dog injuries have decreased significantly after a certain city introduced regulations. It has nothing to do with the argument. It is an irrelevant item and cannot be strengthened.
How to get to Gulao Water Village in Heshan City?
What’s delicious in Heshan?