[a习作temp] argument 161 [TSUBASA] by wildrose800331 [复制链接]

wildrose800331
UID??2602131

特级会员

Rank: 6 Rank: 6

声望: 450
寄托币: 27920
注册时间: 2009-2-13
精华: 1
帖子: 10

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2009-7-7 18:49:22 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

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.
WORDS: 276 (368)
TIME: 超时接了两个电话

DATE: 2009-7-7 16:03:44

The author, in the argument, makes a judgment that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits. The arguer points out two diverse findings of the two studies conducted by the same researchers as a factual ground. In addition to these findings, the deduced presumption is based on a granted prerequisite that respondents and forms of two studies were exactly the same. However, both these preconditions and the assumed deduction are fraught with flaws and weakness.

To begin with, it is unclear about the information of the participants and public libraries. It is quite possible that the respondents in the first study were not the book borrowers in the second. In this case, any comparison between these two is groundless and meaningless. Even if the participants were the same, the respondents might have borrowed all stocks of literary classics in public libraries and rank the mystery novel as their second favorite reading materials. This preference can not justify that they do not like literary classics.

Similarly, it is hasty and cursory without considering the form of two studies. If the first one was in the form of questionnaire, all of the given choices did not cover mystery novel. Constrained to the answering form as multiple choices, respondents could not choose mystery novel to show their preference. It was the questionnaire designer rather than respondents that caused the misled findings of the study.

Finally, respondents' preference was not exclusive hence literary classics and mystery novel may not conflict with each other even with the same subjects. It is equally possible that they did prefer literary classics at the time of the first study but then obsessed themselves with mystery novel ascribing to propagandas or media attraction, such as the shocking wave of Harry Potter or works of Hitchcock(希区柯克). This shift in reading habits is thereafter natural and reasonable.

In sum, it is premature and problematic to conclude that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits. If more details of participants, stocks of public libraries and form of studies were considered, if other influential possibilities were rule out, the conclusion would be credible and convincing with firm grounds.

已有 1 人评分	声望	收起理由
Brian78	+ 1	O了~

总评分: 声望 + 1 查看全部投币

Argument, TSUBASA, 超时

相关帖子 Updated by 2024.10.04

宁愿相信世间的真善这样才美

回应
0

使用道具举报

Brian78
UID??2604416

高级会员

Rank: 5 Rank: 5

声望: 15
寄托币: 1297
注册时间: 2009-2-19
精华: 0
帖子: 2

沙发

发表于 2009-7-8 22:38:33 |只看该作者

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.
WORDS: 276 (368)
TIME: 超时接了两个电话

DATE: 2009-7-7 16:03:44

The author, in the argument, makes a judgment that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits. The arguer points out two diverse findings of the two studies conducted by the same researchers as a factual ground. In addition to these findings, the deduced presumption is based on a granted prerequisite that respondents and forms of two studies were exactly the same. However, both these preconditions and the assumed deduction are fraught with flaws and weakness.

To begin with, it is unclear about the information of the participants and public libraries. It is quite possible that the respondents in the first study were not the book borrowers in the second. In this case, any comparison between these two is groundless and meaningless. Even if the participants were the same, the respondents might have borrowed all stocks of literary classics in public libraries and rank the mystery novel as their second favorite reading materials.（这句没看懂……）This preference can not justify that they do not like literary classics.
这个study都是针对大众的，我觉得没必要挑样本的刺，可以论述图书馆并不是唯一书源~
Similarly, it is hasty and cursory without considering the form of two studies. If the first one was in the form of questionnaire, all of the given choices did not cover mystery novel. Constrained to the answering form as multiple choices, respondents could not choose mystery novel to show their preference. It was the questionnaire designer rather than respondents that caused the misled findings of the study.
这个我觉得稍稍有点牵强~
Finally, respondents' preference was not exclusive hence literary classics and mystery novel may not conflict with each other even with the same subjects. It is equally possible that they did prefer literary classics at the time of the first study but then obsessed themselves with mystery novel ascribing to propagandas or media attraction, such as the shocking wave of Harry Potter or works of Hitchcock(希区柯克)（希区柯克有神话作品吗？~）. This shift in reading habits is thereafter natural and reasonable.
我觉得可以论述神话小说只是风靡一时好一点~
In sum, it is premature and problematic to conclude that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits. If more details of participants, stocks of public libraries and form of studies were considered, if other influential possibilities were rule out, the conclusion would be credible and convincing with firm grounds.

这篇可能是受了接电话的影响，感觉错误纠的不是特别好~我觉得有问题的地方已经在上面都指出来了~不过用词用句还是很老道~~继续加油！

我反复地回头看来时的路，看不出第二种轨迹。。

使用道具举报

wildrose800331
UID??2602131

特级会员

Rank: 6 Rank: 6

声望: 450
寄托币: 27920
注册时间: 2009-2-13
精华: 1
帖子: 10

板凳

发表于 2009-7-9 06:44:54 |只看该作者

The author, in the argument, makes a judgment that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits. The arguer points out two diverse findings of the two studies conducted by the same researchers as a factual ground. In addition to these findings, the deduced presumption is based on a granted prerequisite that respondents and forms of two studies were exactly the same. However, both these preconditions and the assumed deduction are fraught with flaws and weakness.

To begin with, it is unclear about the information of the participants and public libraries. It is quite possible that the respondents in the first study were not the book borrowers in the second. In this case, any comparison between these two is groundless and meaningless. Even if the participants were the same, the respondents might have borrowed literary classics from other bookstores or libraries.Perhaps they like some of literary classics so much that they are not satisfied with borrowed books with wrinkled pages or folding trace and they buy them for collection. Thus merely data from public libraries can not justify that they do not like literary classics.

Similarly, it is hasty and cursory without considering the form of two studies. If the first one was in the form of questionnaire, all of the given choices did not cover mystery novel. Constrained to the answering form as multiple choices, respondents could not choose mystery novel to show their preference. It was the questionnaire designer rather than respondents that caused the misled findings of the study.

Finally, respondents' preference was not exclusive hence literary classics and mystery novel may not conflict with each other even with the same subjects. It is equally possible that they did prefer literary classics at the time of the first study but then obsessed themselves with mystery novel ascribing to propagandas or media attraction, such as the shocking wave of Harry Potter or works of Hitchcock(希区柯克)（mystery是神秘诡异类小说哦）. This shift in reading habits is thereafter natural and reasonable.Moreover, some literary classic can be classified into mystery novels according to their themes and plots.
我觉得可以论述神话小说只是风靡一时好一点~
In sum, it is premature and problematic to conclude that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits. If more details of participants, stocks of public libraries and form of studies were considered, if other influential possibilities were rule out, the conclusion would be credible and convincing with firm grounds.

宁愿相信世间的真善这样才美

使用道具举报