- 最后登录
- 2010-6-8
- 在线时间
- 586 小时
- 寄托币
- 1246
- 声望
- 79
- 注册时间
- 2010-3-2
- 阅读权限
- 25
- 帖子
- 3
- 精华
- 0
- 积分
- 1087
- UID
- 2772328
- 声望
- 79
- 寄托币
- 1246
- 注册时间
- 2010-3-2
- 精华
- 0
- 帖子
- 3
|
本帖最后由 lynnuana 于 2010-5-6 09:59 编辑
(第一个研究称大部分Leeville respondents 更喜欢读文学经典;但是,第二个研究证实公共图书馆中的mystery novel 最常被借阅) --> 第一个研究中的respondents言不符实
The speaker has an illogical sequence in his causal chain. He indicates the following-up study found the type of book most frequently checked out of every public library in Leeville was mystery novel, and, as a result, the respondents in the first study actually misled their researchers with the unconvincing responses that they preferred literary classics as reading material. However, this logic will not bear much scrutiny.
Fundamentally, the author makes several specific errors in the following-up study cited. Primarily, he assumes the borrowers in the second study are the respondents in the first study (No mention made in this article). It is certainly possible that the one who most frequently borrow the books in the public libraries is other Leeville residents or organizations rather than the respondents. Thus, it is insufficient to prove these people lying. In the next place, to support his assertion, the speaker claims, “the type of book most frequently checked out of each of the public libraries in Leeville was the mystery novel.” First, it implies that the leeville citizens, in fact, prefer to read mystery novels instead of literary classics or other materials. Apparently, the speaker intends to distinguish the mystery novels from the literary classics; but it is not the case. For all we know, many mystery novels, such as the Adventures of Sherlock Holmes or Agatha Christie Mystery Novels are literary classics in history as well. Accordingly, perhaps the literary classics the respondents mentioned could also include mystery novels. Second, the way the statements are set up also indicated that the public libraries are the main book suppliers in Leeville; therefore, the investigation in this kind of libraries is utterly enough to support his view. Yet, many features are overlooked: people, the respondents included, may borrow books from the private libraries in the university or communities, or buy the books they like in the local bookstores, or even online. However, in any of these situations, the speaker’s points fail. Moreover, the speaker also assumes that the mystery novels checked out of each library could be undoubtedly read by the borrowers. But, he gives inadequate support to make this assumption. Do these people--the respondents may be involved or not-- themselves really read the books through with interest? Maybe they were attracted by the fancy book cover or just borrowed the book for their friends; they may merely skim over the book or even not open it any more after bringing it home. That such impulsive acts could indicate their reading habits formed in the future is still open to doubt. Hence, with so many weak spots in the following-up study, the conclusion that the respondents distort the truth is presumptuous. Some final comments are in order.
One cannot conclude that the respondents had misrepresented their reading habits simply based on an incomprehensive following-up study which overlooks some vital information that would destroy its soundness and the logical chain between the two studies. |
-
总评分: 声望 + 1
查看全部投币
|