【Big Fish】3月9日Argument161-By jjooyy

jjooyyUID: 2704028

Argument No.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.

By comparing a study result from Leeville (L)'s citizens and the statistics from the libraries in L, the arguer draws a conclusion that the respondents in the study had misrepresented their reading habits. However, there are several critic fallacies in the argument, some of which I would point out as below.

To begin with, the argument provides no more information about the respondents in the first study. If the number of people helping research is relatively small compared with the popularity of L, it is not scientific to equate them as all citizens in L. Or if people involved in the research do not typify the citizen, not surprisingly, the result is not responsible for the reading habits in L. In order to validate the outcome of the study, the author should offer details demonstrating that the respondents typify citizens in L.

In addition, the fact that the mystery novel was the most frequently checked out type of books does not equate citizens read those books frequently. Being checked out frequently could mean that citizens in L are interested in the mysterious book, but have no patience to read it thoroughly. Or students in the University of L frequently borrow these books for school works. Since no more information supported, no further conclusion like citizens who borrowed them did read them can be made.

Finally, even if the assumption above is supportive, without telling how long the second study checked about the statistics, it is unsubstantiated to advance the conclusion. Perhaps, in a short time, mystery novels were in fashion at that time because of some mysterious events happened, while people in L prefer literary classics in a long period. So only if the data presented is based on a long time can the conclusion be grounded.

In sum, based on the two studies the statement gives, the opinion that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits would not convince me. To further prove it, concrete information are necessary such as: (1) whether the respondents are typical citizens in L; (2)whether it is L's residents that borrowed the mysterious novels frequently and read them; (3)how long the second study is held.

请问 argu什么样子 叫做论证充分？

SansouciUID: 2755036

Argument No.161
红色：不太准确的部分
蓝色：优秀的词和句子
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.（你也认为作者的说法正确？首段应该指出谬误！！！）

By comparing a study result from Leeville (L)'s citizens and the statistics from the libraries in L, the arguer draws a conclusion that the respondents in the study had misrepresented their reading habits. However, there are several critic fallacies in the argument, some of which I would point out as below.这段最好提到第一段

To begin with, the argument provides no more information about the respondents in the first study. If the number of people helping research is relatively small compared with the popularity of L貌似不能简写哦, it is not scientific to equate them as all citizens in L. Or if people involved in the research do not typify the citizen, not surprisingly, the result is not responsible for the reading habits in L. In order to validate the outcome of the study, the author should offer details demonstrating that the respondents typify citizens in L.

In addition, the fact that the mystery novel was the most frequently checked out type of books does not equate citizens read those books frequently. Being checked out frequently could mean that citizens in L are interested in the mysterious book, but have no patience to read it thoroughly. Or students in the University of L frequently borrow these books for school works. Since no more information supported, no further conclusion like citizens who borrowed them did read them can be made.这段不错

Finally, even if the assumption above is supportive, without telling how long the second study checked about the statistics, it is unsubstantiated to advance the conclusion. Perhaps, in a short time, mystery novels were in fashion at that time because of some mysterious events happened, while people in L prefer literary classics in a long period. So only if the data presented is based on a long time can the conclusion be grounded.什么意思？？语法有问题哦

In sum, based on the two studies the statement gives, the opinion that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits would not convince me. To further prove it, concrete information are necessary such as: (1) whether the respondents are typical citizens in L; (2)whether it is L's residents that borrowed the mysterious novels frequently and read them; (3)how long the second study is held.序号可以不用标哦~~

argument说穿了就是找错
在除首尾两段，其他中间段都应该按：指出谬误，解释谬误，纠正谬误，这三步进行
而其中最重要出彩点就是解释谬误部分。
建议可以参看下北美范文