标题: 【kaleidoscope】第五次作业argumengt161 by vina1114 [打印本页] 作者: vina1114 时间: 2009-8-10 08:24:24 标题: 【kaleidoscope】第五次作业argumengt161 by vina1114
本帖最后由 vina1114 于 2009-8-10 08:25 编辑
Argument 161 TOPIC: ARGUMENT161 - 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.
The author addresses the issue of the reading habits of Leeville citizens .In the letter, the author cites two surveys in order to support his/her conclusion that the respondents in the first survey had misrepresented their reading habits. At the first look, it seems to be a well presented argument. However, the evidence lends little credible support for the argument.
First of all, the validity of the first survey conducted by a research about the reading habits of Leeville citizens is doubtful. Lacking the information about the employees surveyed and the respondents, it is impossible to access the validity of the results. For example , for example , if 200 employees were surveyed but only 2 respondents ,the conclusion that the Leeville citizens preferred literary classics as reading material would be highly suspect. Because the argument offers no evidence that could rule out these interpretations ,the results of surveys is insufficient to support the conclusion.
Secondly , the author hastily assumes that the reading habits of Leeville citizens is to read mystery novel more, according to the second survey which reveals that the mystery novel was checked out most frequently in every public libraries in Leeville .there are many possible factors that are ignored by the author. Perhaps the number of the mystery novel in the public libraries is the most, so people who borrow books from the public libraries choose to borrow the mystery novel more. And it is also that the Leeville citizens who like reading literary classics prefer buying books to borrowing books . They may enjoy collecting the literary classics after reading . since the author overlooks these possibilities , so I can not accept the author’s assumption that the main reading habits of Leeville citizens is to read the mystery novel .
Finally, the conclusion made by the author that the respondents in the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits is unwarranted and unjustifiable.even if the survey is convincing ,the Leeville citizens prefer literary classics as reading material is not amount to the reading habits of the citizens. The Leeville may just consider the literary classics as a better reading material, but when they want to read something ,they choose other tapes of books which is more interesting than literary classics to spare their time. In addition , just as I say above, the second survey
also cannot afford what the reading habits of the citizens is . obviously , the author’s conclusion is unfair .
In summary , the author has not convinced me the conclusion that the reading habits of Leeville citizens is mystery novel rather than literary classics. The author should provide more clear evidences to bolster it. The author had better offer another survey which can show the detailed information about the reading habits of the Leeville citizens to make his argument more convincing.