The argument tries to recommend that restoring the time devoted to weather news and

local news to its formal level will result in an increasd viewership and will
prevent the further loss in revenue. This argument is flawed due to numerous
unwannted assumptions. Primarily it tries to link the decreased time devotion of
wheather and local news directly to coplaints recieved from people and canceling of
advertising contract. It also has causal flaw.

First and foremost the argument assumes that decrease in the time devoted during
the late night show was the only cause of complaint recieved from viewers on the
station's wheather and local news. However this might not be the case as the
argument that these concernes were explicitly related to the late-news program .
These complaints might be related to the coverage of the weather and local news on
other news shows run by the station. The argument had been strongetr if it had
provided the detail regarding the focus of of the complaints registered and the
concerns people metioned.

Secondly, eve if we assume that the complaints were only concerned with the late
night news program the argument leave many other questions unanswrred. The argument
makes a conclusion based on the underlying assumption that restoring the time
devoted to its earlier amount will increase the viwership. This assumption is not
based on a firm grounding. Insofar, the argument does not provide any data such as
TRP value before and after the change in the time devoted to corroborate this
assumption.Also, there is no detail regarding any decrese in the viwership as well.
If the argument had provided the data to showcase the trend of change in the number
of viewers due to change in the time devoted we would have been in better position
to evaluate this argument.

Finally, The argument also assumes that the station lost the contract because of
decrease in time devoted to weather and local news during the late-news show. This
assumption is unwarranted. Moreover, the argument do not give any detail regarding
the reason behind advertisement contract cancellation. If the argument had given
the information to support this claim the argument would have been more convincing.
Therefore to conclude the argument makes unjustified link between restoring the
time content and increase in viewership and prevention of advertising contract
cancellation, thus remains unconvincing.