[a习作temp] argument161 【kaleidoscope】小组第五次作业 [复制链接]

cloverlanpus
UID: 2606441

寄托新兵

Rank: 2

声望: 0
寄托币: 209
注册时间: 2009-2-24
精华: 0
帖子: 0

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2009-8-10 10:58:45 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

In this argument, the arguer concludes that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits. To support his conclusion, the arguer cites a study of the type of the most checked out book of the public libraries in Leeville. However, this argument is unfounded for several obvious fallacies.

First of all, the auger fail to convince me that the study of public libraries can reflect the entire reading habits in Leeville. Common sense tells me that not every reader chose to read book in the public libraries. The arguer doesn't take the other readers reading habits into account who would like to buy book to read. What's more, many people today read books through the Internet. However, the arguer unfairly overlooks their reading habits. Thus, unless the auger provide more information about the reading habits of different people through different way, his conclusion will be questionable.

Secondly, even if the reading habits of the people who go to public libraries were representative, the conclusion that they misrepresented them is still open to doubt because I find no sign in this argument that these two studies are conducted in the some period. And the arguer doesn't rule out the possibility that the first study represents their reading habits at most of the time while the second one took place when the mystery novels were abnormal popular for some social reason, such as the recommend of some famous people. Thus, to support his conclusion, the arguer must take other elements into consideration which may exert influence on the study.

Thirdly, even if the above gratuitous assumption were the fact, the conclusion still have fallacy. The arguer's conclusion about the misrepresentation overlookes the fact that the respondents of the first study may tell lies. Common sense tells me that people tend to leave a better impression on a stranger. Thus, the respondents may lie about their reading habits on purpose in order to leaving a impression that they are civilized and have a good taste about reading. If the study were conducted in public, this condition is more likely to happen.

To sum up, the arguer fail to support his argument effectively and directly. To strengthen his point, he should conduct a thorough investigation about the citizens reading habits and rule out other aspects which may decrease its credit. What's more, the reality of the first study should also be checked.

回应
0

使用道具举报

网兜妮妮
UID: 2612538

中级会员

Rank: 4

声望: 8
寄托币: 1213
注册时间: 2009-3-7
精华: 0
帖子: 9

沙发

发表于 2009-8-10 12:41:21 |只看该作者

In this argument, the arguer concludes that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits. To support his conclusion, the arguer cites a study of the type of the most checked out book of the public libraries in Leeville. However, this argument is unfounded for several obvious fallacies.

First of all, the auger fails to convince me that the study of public libraries can reflect the entire reading habits in Leeville. Common sense tells me that not every reader chose to read book in the public libraries. (这点很好，我没想到）The arguer doesn't take the other readers’reading habits into account who would like to buy book to read. What's more, many people today read books through the Internet. （电子书，很好的可能性分析）However, the arguer unfairly overlooks their reading habits. Thus, unless the auger provide more information about the reading habits of different people through different way, his conclusion will be questionable.

Secondly, even if the reading habits of the people who go to public libraries were representative, the conclusion that they misrepresented them is still open to doubt because I find no sign in this argument that these two studies are conducted in the some period. And the arguer doesn't rule out the possibility that the first study represents their reading habits at most of the time while the second one took place when the mystery novels were abnormal popular for some social reason, such as the recommend of some famous people. Thus, to support his conclusion, the arguer must take other elements into consideration which may exert influence on the study.

Thirdly, even if the above gratuitous assumption were the fact, the conclusion still have fallacy. The arguer's conclusion about the misrepresentation overlookes（好像上面用过，换ignores) the fact that the respondents of the first study may tell lies.(这一点作为批判对象好像有点斤斤计较的意思了） Common sense tells me that people tend to leave a better impression on a stranger. Thus, the respondents may lie about their reading habits on purpose in order to leaving a impression that they are civilized and have a good taste about reading. If the study were conducted in public, this condition is more likely to happen. 有一点关于LZ可能忽略了，可以批literary classics 和 mystry novel 的相容性，比如《尤利西斯》这类书两者都是

To sum up, the arguer fail to support his argument effectively and directly. To strengthen his point, he should conduct a thorough investigation about the citizens reading habits and rule out other aspects which may decrease its credit. What's more, the reality of the first study should also be checked.

清空~~明媚吧~~~

【2025FALL】全站祈福已开放~~来领祈福章，求offer得offer

使用道具举报