[a习作temp] 求拍着急！下周考。argument161 [复制链接]

cherish8809
UID: 2552614

新手上路

Rank: 1

声望: 0
寄托币: 89
注册时间: 2008-9-30
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2009-2-28 16:25:10 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

本帖最后由 cherish8809 于 2009-3-8 13:03 编辑

In this argument, the author compares the different results of two studies conducted by one group of researchers concerning the reading habits of Leeville citizens. Then it is perceived that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their habits. At first glance, this argument might be reliable. However, close scrutiny of the author's reasoning process reveals several defects in the logical chain.

First, the conclusion of the misrepresentation of the respondents in the first study is based on the assumption that the study results accurately reflect the citizens reading habits, or accurately predict their behaviors. Nevertheless, this might not be the truth. The author must point out that the respondents consist of a statistically reliable number of citizens in Leeville, that is to say, both the quantity and the capability to represent all Leeville citizens should be satisfied. Furthermore, common sense dictates that people always describe themselves as literary humans or being fond of literary classics whatever the reality is. Consequently, the preference in spoken words amounts to scant evidence that they would have reading habits of both kinds or they would buy equal number of both kinds.

Another problem with this argument is that the author took it for granted that the different results are due to the misrepresentation of the respondents which might not be the real cause. The author overlooks other possible factors. Given the different time period of carrying out the studies and perhaps the different methods adopted by the researchers, this misrepresentation might be concluded too hastily.

Thirdly, even assuming that it is because the respondents' reading habits with mystery novel that they purchase this category from the public libraries, it is simply unfair to infer that they will consequently choose the same kind from other libraries or organizations providing reading materials. Perhaps citizens just have an inclination to buy mystery novel from public libraries while the purchase of literary classics often happens in other bookstores; for that matter perhaps the amount of checked-out literary books surpasses that of the mystery novel which would lead to the contrary conclusion.

In sum, the author's conclusion is based on two studies with different backgrounds. In this argument, neither the study's compliance with statistics nor the method of controlling which should also be followed in scientific experiment could be neglected. Besides, the purchasing or buying preference must be studied in various libraries including public libraries. Without ruling out these conditions, the author's conclusion is undoubtedly unconvincing.