【Big Fish】3月9日Argument161-By Jenius

jenius4869UID: 2659821

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 concludes that the respondents in the first study provided inauthentic answers when asked about their reading habits. To bolster his/her assertion, the author cites the result of the second study which focus on the objective facts rather than subjective responds of people. For several logical fallacies, the argument is unpersuasive.

The fundamental problem with the author's conclusion is he/she falsely connects two independent incidents together without convincing reasoning. The type of book most frequently checked out of each of the public libraries in Leeville, as the author claims, is mystery novel. Yet, could this phenomenon suggest the reading habit of the local people? What about the people who never borrow books from libraries? Or the ones prefer buying literary classics for collection but borrow mystery novel from libraries? In addition, it is also possible that one of the mystery novels is very popular at that time, therefore many people, especially young, would like to borrow it from libraries which leads to the raise in the mystery novel's borrowing. In short, just depend on the investigation of the book which being borrowed most frequently could not represent the preference of the whole generalization.

Set the second study aside, could we completely trust the first investigation? Emphatically, no. Since the author fails to provide any elaborate and valid information about the respondents, such as the age, educational level, gender sex, and the size of the sample, we impossibly judge whether these people could represent the whole. It is possible the old people, which take a large part of the respondents, may suggest they prefer literary classics. If so, the fact would seriously weaken the dependability of this survey.

Even if there is discrepancy between these two studies, it is not justifiable to allege the respondents of the first survey had misrepresented their reading habits. In all likelihood they provide with a genuine respond, even differs from the second study. Without providing any firm and reasonable evidence to support the conclusion, the argument remains unwarranted.

To sum up, the argument is untenable from the aspects I discussed above. To better improve his/her standpoint, the author needs to conduct a more reliable and authentic investigation which may involve both the people who can be the representatives of the population and the statistic analyse of  the reading materials' condition in libraries and bookstores.

补充：写完发现这个巨大的bug没发现，第一次遇到这个logical flaw。
We do not know how long is the interim period between the two studies, many conditions may change after sufficient long time.(P→C) ★★★★