标题: argument161 by ilovegouding 8.3 第十五次 [打印本页] 作者: ilovegouding 时间: 2008-8-3 23:10:20 标题: argument161 by ilovegouding 8.3 第十五次
题目：ARGUMENT 161 - In a study of reading habits of Leeville citizens conducted by the University of Leeville, most respondents said they preferred literary classics as reading material. However, a follow-up study conducted by the same researchers found that the type of book most frequently checked out of each of the public libraries in Leeville was the mystery novel. Therefore, it can be concluded that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits.
字数：484 用时：0:35:45 日期：2008-8-3
Based on the results of two studies concerning respectively what books people love reading and tend to borrow from the public libraries, which seem show a discrepancy, the arguer asserts that the respondents in the first study had given wrong or inaccurate answers. While the conclusion seems to be reached by logical reasoning, the argument, however, suffers from a series of crucial fallacies, which render it wholly untenable as it stands.
A threshold problem involved in this argument lies in the credibility of these two studies. To assess the reliability of studies, we need to know how they were conducted. However, there is no evidence provided in this argument that the two studies were scientifically conducted. For one thing, neither of the numbers of the respondents in the two studies is pointed out. Besides, the author provides no evidence to prove that the samples in the studies can be representative of general readers. Absent such evidence, it is just as likely that both of the samples are too small to draw any conclusions that can be generalized. Or the first study mainly surveyed students majoring in humanities, while the second study's respondents were largely office workers, who are most likely to have a different reading preference with the students.
Furthermore, implicit in this argument is the assumption that mystery novels are readers’ favorites because they are most frequently checked out of the public libraries, which is unwarranted. There is possibility that people buy literary classics from bookstores instead of borrowing from libraries, because they would like to be forever in possession of their favorite books. Or they can borrow literary classics from their friends, colleagues, classmates, neighbors, and so on. Moreover, there are alternative explanations for the high frequency of checking out mystery novels. For example, the libraries surveyed were all small ones, lacking enough varieties of interesting books for people to choose and people had to borrow mystery novels, probably the only one type of books worthy of reading.
Yet another one problem with the argument is that the author overlooks the fact that some mystery novels belong to the category of literary classics. Consider, for instance, Odyssey, The Arabian Nights, and Treasury Island, to name only a few of them. Therefore, it is entirely possible that readers who are enthusiastic about such mystery novels represented their authentic reading habits in the first study, especially given the possibility that the questionnaire of the first study had not allowed a choice of "mystery novel" for the respondents but only "literary classics".
In the final analysis, the conclusion of this argument is seriously weakened by the several fallacies the arguer commits. To improve the argument, it would be helpful to provide information concerning the credibility of the two studies and to substantiate the unfair assumption that people prefer mystery novels according to the library records. Besides, the author may need a better understanding of the category of books.