[a习作temp] 求拍，argument161，有拍必回 [复制链接]

xwjsarah
UID：2627269

初级会员

Rank: 3 Rank: 3

声望: 4
寄托币: 253
注册时间: 2009-4-9
精华: 0
帖子: 4

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2010-3-22 17:26:31 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

本帖最后由 Bela1229 于 2010-3-22 21:05 编辑

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.

In this argument ,the author claims that the respondents in the first study about Leeville citizens’
reading habits have
misrepresented ,which study has
been conducted by the university of Leeville.To substantiate the point,author enumerates
the other study which
has also conducted by the same reseachers
that the most frequently cheacked out of each of the public liberies in Leevill was the mystery novel.The argument is unconvincing for several critical flaws .

From the analysis ,we can see that the author is based on the first study’s result and to make the conclusion of the whole argument .However ,we should know that ,how long do these two studies happen between each other ?If these two studies happened for long time between each other ,the people’s tastes for books will surely change with the development of society.
Secondly ,cencerning
these two studies’ repondents ,do they have any differences of social status ,education background and personal indispositions .Author doesn’t enumerate any warranted information to describ and to prove it .For instance ,if the people in the first study are all professors in college ,what they
tending to classic books is very reasonable ;whereas ,in the second study ,people are all civilian who scatter in different jobs ,what they addicting to read mystery novels is completely logical.
Finally ,it is presumptutous to judge the first study has misreprented the citizen’s reading habit according to comparing the result of second study .Actually ,author doesn’t
give any strongly convincing evidence neither to justify the fallacy of first study ,nor to prove the rationality of second study .
To sum up ,the author doesn’t list any sound data to indicate the two studies that turely implyed on the above argument .what’s more,to strengthen the argument ,author should list some details of those repondents ,such as their growing background and educational situation
or even jobs and so forth.

回应
0

使用道具举报

jjooyy
UID：2704028

特级会员

Rank: 6 Rank: 6

声望: 95
寄托币: 2508
注册时间: 2009-9-27
精华: 0
帖子: 23

沙发

发表于 2010-3-23 15:43:02 |只看该作者

1# xwjsarah
In this argument ,the author claims that the respondents in the first study about Leeville citizens’ reading habits have misrepresented ,which study has
been conducted by the university of Leeville.To substantiate the point,author enumerates the other study which has also been conducted by the same reseachers
that the most frequently cheacked out of each of the public liberies in Leevill was the mystery novel.The argument is unconvincing for several critical flaws .

From the analysis ,we can see that the author is based on the first study’s result and to make the conclusion of the whole argument .However ,we should know that ,how long do these two studies happen between each other ?If these two studies happened for long time between each other ,the people’s tastes for books will surely change with the development of society.

Secondly ,cencerning these two studies’ repondents ,do they have any differences of social status ,education background and personal indispositions .Author doesn’t enumerate any warranted information to describ and to prove it .For instance ,if the people in the first study are all professors in college ,what they tending to classic books is very reasonable ;whereas ,in the second study ,people are all civilian who scatter in different jobs ,what they addicting to read mystery novels is completely logical.这个跟前面一段差不多吧
Finally ,it is presumptutous to judge the first study has misreprented the citizen’s reading habit according to comparing the result of second study .Actually ,author doesn’t give any strongly convincing evidence neither to justify the fallacy of first study ,nor to prove the rationality of second study . 看不懂

To sum up ,the author doesn’t list any(你全部否定了他的数据，这样真的好吗？) sound data to indicate the two studies that turely implyed on the above argument .what’s more,to strengthen the argument ,author should list some details of those repondents ,such as their growing background and educational situation or even jobs and so forth.

整篇文章没有抓住真正的重点，总是说调查没有提供足够的信息，有种挑刺的感觉，其中还有些逻辑错误啊，比如check out frequently真的能代表他们读的多吗吗？就算图书馆的书是mb借的多，也并不能表示所有人看mb多之类之类。。。

使用道具举报