argument161

芊芊QQUID: 2647827

Argument161: 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.

Most respondents of Leeville citizens who were involved in the reading habits study claimed that they preferred literary classics reading material. However, in the follow-up study, the type of book most frequently checked out in each of the public libraries in Leeville is mystery novel instead of literary classics. Based on this fact, the author blames these respondents for misrepresenting their reading habits. A careful analysis reveals that this argument suffers from several serious flaws.
   
In the first place, the result of the first survey is unreliable. The author fails to inform us how many citizens were involved in the study, how many responded and how the study has been conducted. Thus it is possible that these respondents can not represent the whole citizens in Leeville. So there is a chance that most of the rest citizens except these respondents are attracted by other types of reading material. If this is the case, the fact that the results of the two surveys contradict to each other is believable.

In the second place, the fact in the second survey that mystery novels have been checked out most frequently does not necessarily indicate that mystery novels are adored by most citizens. We can only infer from this fact that many people want to read this kind of book, but how do they feel after reading they? Perhaps they find them boring or even unworthy reading. In addition, borrowing books from libraries is not the only way for Leeville citizens to get reading materials. It is entirely possible that they are likely to pay for their favorite books which are related to literature. Based on this line of reasoning, the citizens hadn’t told lies in the first study.

In the third place, the argument has not provided us any evidence to show whether the result of the second survey is representative of citizens’ all-time reading habits. Maybe these people are only curious about mystery novels or attracted by it for just a while. Thus, after a period of time, the number of people who adored mystery novels would greatly decrease. Moreover, the author fails to mention that how long is the interim between the two surveys. As we all know, if time is long enough, people’s reading habit is easy to change. Then, the respondents shouldn’t be blamed.

To sum up, as the foregoing discussion, it is not hard for us to find that this argument is seriously undermined. In order to bolster this argument, the author should provide more details concerning these two surveys. To make it better, the author should learn to think of all aspects before making any conclusion instead of just based on the result of survey. After all, the reliability of survey is often limited.