- 最后登录
- 2018-11-21
- 在线时间
- 191 小时
- 寄托币
- 253
- 声望
- 4
- 注册时间
- 2009-4-9
- 阅读权限
- 20
- 帖子
- 4
- 精华
- 0
- 积分
- 202
- UID
- 2627269
- 声望
- 4
- 寄托币
- 253
- 注册时间
- 2009-4-9
- 精华
- 0
- 帖子
- 4
|
本帖最后由 Bela1229 于 2010-3-22 21:05 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 claims that the respondents in the first study about Leeville citizens’
reading habits have
misrepresented ,which study has
been conducted by the university of Leeville.To substantiate the point,author enumerates
the other study which
has also conducted by the same reseachers
that the most frequently cheacked out of each of the public liberies in Leevill was the mystery novel.The argument is unconvincing for several critical flaws .
From the analysis ,we can see that the author is based on the first study’s result and to make the conclusion of the whole argument .However ,we should know that ,how long do these two studies happen between each other ?If these two studies happened for long time between each other ,the people’s tastes for books will surely change with the development of society.
Secondly ,cencerning
these two studies’ repondents ,do they have any differences of social status ,education background and personal indispositions .Author doesn’t enumerate any warranted information to describ and to prove it .For instance ,if the people in the first study are all professors in college ,what they
tending to classic books is very reasonable ;whereas ,in the second study ,people are all civilian who scatter in different jobs ,what they addicting to read mystery novels is completely logical.
Finally ,it is presumptutous to judge the first study has misreprented the citizen’s reading habit according to comparing the result of second study .Actually ,author doesn’t
give any strongly convincing evidence neither to justify the fallacy of first study ,nor to prove the rationality of second study .
To sum up ,the author doesn’t list any sound data to indicate the two studies that turely implyed on the above argument .what’s more,to strengthen the argument ,author should list some details of those repondents ,such as their growing background and educational situation
or even jobs and so forth. |
|