[a习作temp] Definitely, a victory 小组第5次作业 Argument 161 By11号kirk [复制链接]

kirk1988
UID: 2416089

新手上路

Rank: 1

声望: 0
寄托币: 99
注册时间: 2007-10-21
精华: 0
帖子: 4

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2010-7-17 17:44:40 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

本帖最后由 kirk1988 于 2010-7-17 17:46 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 presents us the results of two surveies in Leeville and asserts a conclusion between them. He claims that the respondents in the first survey failed to represent their true reading habits accounting for the fact that the results mismatch each other.He pinpoints that the most frequently book checked out from the public libraries in Leeville was mystery novel, which contradictes to the classical literure in the first study.This argument is seemling correct at first glance, but after my deliberating, a series of problematic assumption and evidence make it unconvincing.

To begin with, two unsubstantiated assumptions are responsible for such a ridiculous conclusion.Firstly, the author presumes that all the reading materials in Leeville are from the public libraries.This is opposite to the reality. All the citizens have their rights to buy their favorites in the book store and nobody could force them to borrow the book in a library.So only the data of the libraries is not unreliable.To prove the points of the author, he should give us more informations such as the type of best-seller in the book store.Another poor assumption is that he declares the books checked out are, to a large extent, the popular ones. What an another preposterous indication it is. Know to all,some people prefer doing reading in the library thaks to its tranquil circumstance, comfortable facilities and fantastic atmosphere of learning, whereas others pretend to borrow the books home because of their heavy work or some other reasons.Eventually,these two inappropriate assumptions mislead the author, so does his conclusion.

Albeit grantedly, the author should also illustrates the backgroud of the respondents,like their preference of reading type,in or off the library, and where they usually acquire their reading materials. Ironically, the author mentions nothing about, simply according to the study predicting a verdict.It is entirely a possibility that these group of people, who attended the first study, prone to purchase their books from the book store and merely call on the library.Lacking that essential evidences contributes to the defect of the argument.

Finally, the argument concludes based on a known correlation between the respodents’preferences and the reality of the type of books which were frequently checked out.However, this is not the case.The author fails to supply the time of two investigations.What if the interveal of two studies is 10 years? If that is true, the declaration is obviously unwarranted.The author ignores to list such an accurate proof, causing the unreasoning deduction.

To sum up,unless the author could provide concrete and accurate evidences concerning about the backgroud of the respondents, the time of two investigations to establish their relationship and the some other datas which could explain the mystery novels are the most popular books, the argument won’t be a responsible and resonable one.

回应
0

使用道具举报

wdx19861106
UID: 2821198

高级会员

Rank: 5 Rank: 5

声望: 18
寄托币: 1710
注册时间: 2010-5-27
精华: 0
帖子: 57

沙发

发表于 2010-7-17 19:16:25 |只看该作者

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 presents us the results of two surveys in Leeville and asserts a conclusion between them.（感觉这部分表达不清晰） He claims that the respondents in the first survey failed to represent their true reading habits accounting for the fact that the results mismatch each other. He pinpoints that the most frequently book checked out from the public libraries in Leeville was mystery novel, which contradicts to the classical literature in the first study. This argument is seemling(seems) correct at first glance, but after my deliberating, a series of problematic assumption and evidence make it unconvincing.
(本段前半部分写的有些冗余，合并修改一下会好些。)
To begin with, two unsubstantiated assumptions are responsible for such a ridiculous conclusion. Firstly, the author presumes that all the reading materials in Leeville are from the public libraries. This is opposite to the reality. All the citizens have their rights to buy their favorites in the book store and nobody could force them to borrow the book in a library. So only the data of the libraries is not unreliable. To prove the points of the author, he should give us more information such as the type of best-seller in the book store. Another poor assumption is that he declares the books checked out are, to a large extent, the popular ones. What an another（删去another） preposterous indication it is. Know to all, some people prefer doing reading in the library thanks to its tranquil circumstance, comfortable facilities and fantastic atmosphere of learning, whereas others pretend to borrow the books home because of their heavy work or some other reasons. Eventually, these two inappropriate assumptions mislead the author, so does his conclusion.
Albeit granted, the author should also illustrates the background of the respondents, like their preference of reading type, in or off the library, and where they usually acquire their reading materials. Ironically, the author mentions nothing about these, simply according to the study predicting a verdict. It is entirely a possibility that these groups of people, who attended the first study, prone to purchase their books from the book store and merely call on the library. Lacking those essential evidences contributes to the defect of the argument.
Finally, the argument concludes based on a known correlation between the respondents’ preferences and the reality of the type of books which were frequently checked out. However, this is not the case. The author fails to supply the time of two investigations. What if the interval of two studies is 10 years? If that is true, the declaration is obviously unwarranted. The author ignores to list such an accurate proof, causing the unreasoning deduction.
To sum up, unless the author could provide concrete and accurate evidences concerning about the background of the respondents, the time of two investigations to establish their relationship and the some other data which could explain the mystery novels are the most popular books, the argument won’t be a responsible and reasonable one.
( 文章找出了三个谬误，但第二段和第三段写的论点相近了， 可以合二为一。 我找出的论点：1、调研的详细情况，怎么调研的，怎么采样的？选取的群体怎么样，数量怎么样？
2、 图书馆的情况，图书馆相关书籍外借不？有什么书？说不定没经典文学类的呢？
3、 第二次调研具体情况， 数据准确不？所有书店都调查了？)

另外建议：可以现在Word上初步修改。
1# kirk1988

附件: 你需要登录才可以下载或查看附件。没有帐号？立即注册

2012 Fall
GPA：3.26
GRE：450+800+3.0
T：88 （S：17）
Hope！Hope！

【2025FALL】全站祈福已开放~~来领祈福章，求offer得offer

使用道具举报