[a习作temp] 【kaleidoscope】小组第5次作业 AGREMENT161 by rjyuu [复制链接]

rjyuu
UID: 2591508

中级会员

Rank: 4

声望: 28
寄托币: 1112
注册时间: 2009-1-15
精华: 0
帖子: 6

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2009-8-10 18:13:58 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

TOPIC ARGUMENT161 - In a study ofreading 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 thetype of book most frequently checked out of each of the public libraries inLeeville was the mystery novel. Therefore, it can be concluded that therespondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits.
WORDS 385
TIME 003000
DATE 2009-8-8 164227

In this argument, the author claims thatrespondents in a study conducted by the University of Leeville hadmisrepresented their reading habits. His evidence lies in that although mostrespondents said they prefer literary classics as reading material, this typeof books is not the most frequently checked out of all public libraries inLeeville. At first glance, this argument seems to be appealing. However afterclearly examining we may find it is not well-reasoned. The reasons are asfollows

To start with, the arguer simply assumesthat no mystery novels and literary classics are mutually exclusive, yet thisis not the case. It is universally acknowledged that many mystery novels, likethe mystery of Greek and Odyssey, have long been regarded as literary classics.Thus with no specific evidence indicating which kind of mystery novel ischecked out most frequently, the author could not hastily conclude that peopledo not read literary classics much.

What's more, granted that people are not frequentlyborrowing literary classics in public libraries, the author also unfairlyassumes that this phenomenon is due to the readers' subjective preference. Itis entirely possible there are not many classic literary classics available inpublic libraries. Then how could the author blame the readers for not borrowingthem?

Besides, even if all assumptions mentionedabove is true, the conclusion may still be soundless. The author fail toprovide us with more information concerning which kind of book is most popularin private libraries. It is entirely possible that literary classics arepreserved in better conditions in local private libraries and are of more varieties,attracting more readers and consequently results in less people borrowingliterary classics in public libraries. Also, it is quite possible that localpeople prefer to buy literary classics rather than borrow it from libraries. Withoutruling out these possibilities, the author’s conclusion is obviously premature.

Finally, even if local people really prefermystery novel to literary classics, it is still possible that the respondentsare telling the truth. After all we do not know who they are--Are they a groupof university students? Are they some members from a classic literary club?Could they represent the whole residents in this town? Chances are they aretelling what is true for themselves, yet by no means true for most people.

In sum, the argument is not so convincingas it stands. To make it more persuasive the author would better provide uswith more information concerning local people’s reading habit as well as therespondents’ representativeness.