The reading and the listening both discuss whether the buzzing should be banned or not. The author prents veral complaints from critics about buzzing. However, what the lecturer states rejects most of the main idea in the reading.
陈疾To begin with, the author points out that buzzer may mislead customers by giving incorrect information about the buzzed product. Whereas, the lecturer demonstrates a different idea that buzzers do provide true message about the product. The reason is that unlike ordinary advertiment in which actors are paid to read prepared lines, buzzers are employed by company to convey their real feeling about the good rvice the buzzed product provide, which undermines the validity of the information in the reading.玉髓和玉石的区别
Furthermore, the author holds the opinion that consumers accept buzzing less critically since buzzers often pretend to be private individuals. On the contrary, the lecturer confutes it by saying that customers do not believe everything from buzzers easily, resulting from the fact that customers will ask a lot of questions about the buzzed product such as the price, rvice and how long it has been ud. People will not purcha it easily unless their questions are satisfactorily answered.
用人申请
anticipateFinally, the author maintains that buzzing is likely to ruin social relationship since it may spread mistrust
花生的谜语与狼有关的成语and dishonesty. In contrast, the lecturer oppos it by raising that it is impossible for buzzing to trigger such problem. Becau company can not recruit buzzers if their products are inferior. Thus messages provided by buzzers are sincere and trustworthy which means more customers will enjoy their good experience with the product. Trust and openness will be enhanced in this way.
The reading and the listening both discuss whether buzzing brings a number of negetive impacts and should be banned. The author prents veral plausible critics about buzzing. However, what the lecturer states rejects most of the main idea in the reading.最新的劳动法
明艳动人To begin with, the author points out that buzzers who are paid to prai the product may offer customers incorrect information about the buzzed product. Whereas, the lecturer demonstrates a different idea that it is not true. The reason is that buzzers are not people hired by companies to read lines. Converly, they are also customers who feel satisfied with the company's product and paid to promote the sale. Thus the information obtained from the buzzers are trustworthy.
Furthermore, the author holds the opinion that pretending to be just private individuals, consumers will listen to buzzers' endorment less critically. On the contrary, the lecturer confutes it by saying that costmers do not believe everything provided by buzzers, resulting from the fact that customers
will ask a great many questions, such as the product's price, rvice and how long the buzzer has been using it. Customers will not buy the buzzed product unless buzzers give them satisfactory answers
.
Finally, the author maintains that buzzing will affect adverly the social relationship, thus resulting in the spread of mistrust and dishonesty. In contrast, the lecturer oppos it by raising that it is not the real ca. The truth is that companies may fail to recruit buzzers if their products are in crude fom, which means information offered by buzzers are sincere and trustworthy. Since customers can enjoy the good experience using the product, the trust and honesty will not be undermined.
