【1010G精英组】ARGUMENT161 F组回收站

lynnuanaUID：2772328

* 5月6日，13点之前上交ARGUMENT161，作文直接跟帖，修改直接跟帖，不用另开新帖~
* 要求每篇argument附上逻辑链
* 欢迎在本贴内讨论+BS本期题目~

【ISSUE48情况汇报】（待补充）

总贴地址     F组素材积累库地址

161In 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.

lynnuanaUID：2772328

（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.

lvruochenUID：2792806

路过学习
顺便发表一下意见了

人不一样
抽样调查，万能找茬，学习了，我没有词的时候写出来。这些方面是不是说服力小了一点，不大好放在第一个

概念重合
这个也有意思

我觉得没读完说服力没有读得快更大

学习语言

lxin333UID：2650844

1 假设了古典文学都是借的
2 经常被借阅的不一定是人们最喜欢的
3 经典文学里面可能也有很多神秘小说
4 样本 时间间隔
5 调查中 问题是否有导向性 人们是否理解问题

In this statement, the author concludes that Leeville citizens misrepresented their true reading habits based on two studies. To justify this conclusion, the author points out that the respondents showed their preferences on literary classics as reading material while the follow-up study indicates the mystery novel is most frequently checked out of each of the public libraries in Leeville. However, the author fails to consider several other possible explanations for this apparently discrepancy.

To begin with, the author unfairly assumes that the respondents in the first study borrow most of their reading material from the public libraries. It is entirely possible that Leeville citizens borrow literary classics from university libraries or purchase these books rather than borrow them. If this is the case, the conclusion that Leeville citizens preferred literary classics as reading material from the first study is untenable.

Secondly, even assume the respondents in the study borrow most of their books from the public libraries, the mystery novel, which are most frequently checked out of each of the public libraries is not a good indication of what kind of reading material do citizens prefer. It is very likely that Leeville citizens regard the mystery novels as books of entertaining and just borrow these kind of book for killing time for the reason that these mystery novels are easy-to-understand as newspapers and magazines.

Thirdly, even assume the most frequently checked out of the public libraries indicates Leeville citizens' preferences, the author cannot conclusion that the respondents in the first study misrepresented their reading habits for the reason that the author didn't analyze to what extent the literary classics and mystery novels mentioned in the argument overlap. It is entirely possible that most of the mystery novels checked out of each of the public libraries are literary classics as well. Without ruling out this possibility, the author's conclusion remains unpersuasive.

Fourthly, the reliability of the first study rests on its statistical integrity. The author fails to indicate what portion of the people surveyed actually responded; the smaller this portion, the less reliable the results. Nor does the author inform us the sample was representative of Leeville's public general population. In addition, how much time passed between two studies is unknown from the argument, the reading habits of the first study's respondents may changed, the demographic makeup of Leeville might have changed as well. The author cannot convince me of the result before provide more effective evidence to make the survey persuasive.

Finally, the author fails to take into account that the survey methodology might be problematic: First, whether the survey required that respondents choose their reading habits between alternatives: If it did, then the results might distort the preferences of the respondents. Secondly, were the respondents forthright? If not, the result is unsubstantiated. Thirdly, were they correctly understood the surveys' question before giving out the choices?

In conclusion, the assertion that respondents in the first study misrepresented their reading habits is untenable, in light of a variety of alternative explanations for the apparent discrepancy between the two studies. To bolster it, its proponent must show that the studies are representative enough. To better evaluate the argument, we would need more detailed about the availability of literary classics compared to mystery novels at Leeville's public libraries.

悦微微志燮UID：2759026

In this argument, the author claimed that the Leeville citizens didn’t prefer literary classics as reading material because a study showed that the type of book most frequently checked out of each of the public libraries in Leeville was the mystery novel. I think this argument is well-presented, but not thoroughly well-reasoned.
First of all, the author arbitrarily made the judgement that mystery novel cannot belong to literary classics. But actually, a great many mystery novels, for instance, the Greek mythology are also a kind of literary classics. Maybe the Leeville citizens mostly borrow this kind of books from the libraries.
Secondly, borrowing from the public libraries are not the only way people can get a book. There are so many private libraries, bookstores, E-book websites and so on where people can have the books they like. The number of people who borrow books from public libraries is probably only a little part of the total number. What’s more, the author didn’t tell us how many mystery novels and literary classics are in the libraries. Maybe the libraries has a little amount of mystery novels but a great number of literary classics. People can just borrow what it has in the libraries.
Thirdly, we don't now when the follow-up study started and how long it lasted. Maybe it just lasted a little period when a famous literary classics was newly published. People may have more interest to read the new book. Then the survey will show a unobjective data and we cannot simply conclude the result from such survey. We should make a long enough time’s research which can show what people really like.
In sum, the argument, while it seems logical at first, has several flaws as dicussed above. To make the argument more convinced, the author should offer a more accurate statistics and analyse all resources one can get books from.


不知道这篇怎么写的这么短小...

lynnuanaUID：2772328

5# 悦微微志燮

In this argument, the author claimed that the Leeville citizens didn’t prefer literary classics as reading material because a study showed that the type of book most frequently checked out of each of the public libraries in Leeville was the mystery novel. I think this argument is well-presented, but not thoroughly well-reasoned.

First of all, the author arbitrarily made the judgement that mystery novel cannot belong to literary classics. But actually（觉得actually有转折的意思在，可以不用but？）, a great many mystery novels, for instance, the Greek mythology（我反而把mystery novels理解成侦探小说，比如wiki） are also a kind of literary classics. Maybe the Leeville citizens mostly borrow this kind of books from the libraries.

Secondly, borrowing from the public libraries are not the only way people can get a book.（喜欢，很简洁明了） There are so many private libraries, bookstores, E-book websites and so on where people can have（在直接形象点的动词好一点，觉得，比如buy/borrow/own?） the books they like. The number of people who borrow books from public libraries is probably only a little(few?) part of the total number. What’s more, the author didn’t tell us how many mystery novels and literary classics are in the libraries. Maybe the libraries has a little amount of mystery novels but a great number of literary classics. People can just borrow what it has in the libraries.

Thirdly, we don't know when the follow-up study started and how long it lasted. Maybe it just lasted a little period when a famous literary classics was newly published. （so，连接词？）People may have more interest to read the new book. Then the survey will show a unobjective data and we cannot simply conclude the result from such a survey. We should make a long enough time’s research which can show what people really like.（看过一个文章，里面说尽量不要用should，仅供参考哈）

In sum, the argument, while it seems logical at first, has several flaws as dicussed above. To make the argument more convinced, the author should offer a more accurate statistics and analyse all resources one can get books from.

简洁明了，字数少也许应该多揣测下argument背后的意思，再揪出来深挖些~~

xmaszztUID：2796708

这篇ARGU真的不是很会写。。。先列出提纲好了。。。

1。 古典文学里有很多都是神话小说。比如奥德赛，希腊神话都是古典小说。
2。 两次调查的样本均不详细，间隔时间也不知道，不能说明问题
3。 就算原命题的以上两点假设成立，因果错误：书籍来源不光是图书馆，不能说明阅读习惯

lxin333UID：2650844

7# xmaszzt
神话小说？题目里面是神秘小说 比如推理 悬疑之类的！

lxin333UID：2650844

2# lynnuana

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.赞组长有才 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真严谨-- 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.精彩！

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.

我水平实在有限= =
为什么不分段？会感觉条理不清晰。。。
虽然样本不具代表性这点提得不爱提了 但是这里面还有样本间隔时间的问题。。。

悦微微志燮UID：2759026

4# lxin333

In this statement, the author concludes that Leeville citizens misrepresented their true reading habits based on two studies. To justify this conclusion, the author points out that the respondents showed their preferences on literary classics as reading material while the follow-up study indicates the mystery novel is most frequently checked out of each of the public libraries in Leeville. However, the author fails to consider several other possible explanations for this apparently discrepancy.

To begin with, the author unfairly assumes that the respondents in the first study borrow most of their reading material from the public libraries. It is entirely possible that Leeville citizens borrow literary classics from university libraries or purchase these books rather than borrow them. If this is the case, the conclusion that Leeville citizens preferred literary classics as reading material from the first study is untenable.

Secondly, even assume the respondents in the study borrow most of their books from the public libraries, the mystery novel, which are most frequently checked out of each of the public libraries is not a good indication of what kind of reading material do citizens prefer. It is very likely that Leeville citizens regard the mystery novels as books of entertaining and just borrow these kind of book for killing time for the reason that these mystery novels are easy-to-understand as newspapers and magazines.（嗯，这个论点是我没有想到过的，学习咯）

Thirdly, even assume the most frequently checked out of the public libraries indicates Leeville citizens' preferences, the author cannot conclusion that the respondents in the first study misrepresented their reading habits for the reason that the author didn't analyze to what extent the literary classics and mystery novels mentioned in the argument overlap. It is entirely possible that most of the mystery novels checked out of each of the public libraries are literary classics as well. Without ruling out this possibility, the author's conclusion remains unpersuasive.

Fourthly, the reliability of the first study rests on its statistical integrity. The author fails to indicate what portion of the people surveyed actually responded; the smaller this portion, the less reliable the results. Nor does the author inform us the sample was representative of Leeville's public general population. In addition, how much time passed between two studies is unknown from the argument, the reading habits of the first study's respondents may changed, the demographic makeup of Leeville might have changed as well. The author cannot convince me of the result before provide more effective evidence to make the survey persuasive.

Finally, the author fails to take into account that the survey methodology might be problematic: First, whether the survey required that respondents choose their reading habits between alternatives: If it did, then the results might distort the preferences of the respondents. Secondly, were the respondents forthright? If not, the result is unsubstantiated. Thirdly, were they correctly understood the surveys' question before giving out the choices?

In conclusion, the assertion that respondents in the first study misrepresented their reading habits is untenable, in light of a variety of alternative explanations for the apparent discrepancy between the two studies. To bolster it, its proponent must show that the studies are representative enough. To better evaluate the argument, we would need more detailed about the availability of literary classics compared to mystery novels at Leeville's public libraries.

这篇文章逻辑性很强，正文前三段的递进用的特别好~正文最后一段也很出彩~
文章中很多观点都是我没想到的，恩恩，学习~