【Big Fish】04月05日Argument161-by mseyj

mseyjUID: 2730706

Argument No.161
In a study of reading habits of Leevillecitizens conducted by the University of Leeville, mostrespondents said they preferred literary classics as reading material. However,a follow-up study conducted by the same researchers found that the type of bookmost frequently checked out of each of the public libraries in Leeville was themystery novel. Therefore, it can be concluded that the respondents in the firststudy had misrepresented their reading habits.

In this argument, the author attempt toclaim that the respondents in the first study of reading habits of citizens inLeeville give wrong information to the investigators based on a follow-upsurvey of which the result is that the type of book most frequently borrowed ofeach of the public libraries was mystery novel rather than literary classics.At first glance, the claim seems to be reasonable. However, the author fails toconcern some significant aspects that may seriously undermine the argument.

A threshold problem with the argument is thatthe author fails to provide the information about the respondents in the firststudy.
It is entirely possible that the
number of the respondents is insufficient,and occupy a small percentage of the overall citizens in Leeville. Thus, theycannot be representative of the general population.

Moreover, even if the respondents arestatistically significantly and typify the whole citizens, the preference tothe literary classics does not necessarily mean that they do not like and checkout the mystery novel. And perhaps, there are more mystery novels than literaryclassics in library, so they can only borrow one literary classic while twomystery novels are available, but actually they prefer literary classics to themystery novels. All these cases, if true, would lead to the large number of themystery novels checked out.

Another fundamental problem that underminesthe argument is that the follow-up study only investigates the public librariesto find out people’s favorite books. However, common sense informs me thatthere are a myriad of ways that people could read books they like, such asgoing to a private library, or buying them in a bookstore. Without consideringthese possibilities, the result based on the second study would be unreliable.

Last but not the least, the author neglectsto indicate the time between the two studies. Even if each conclusion of boththe two surveys is correct, we do not know whether they are close enough intime or not. It is quietly possible that people in Leeville prefer the literaryclassics at the time when the first study was conducted. But after a certaintime, they might change their habits and be prone to read the mystery novels.The longer time between these two studies, the more possibility that the habitsmight change and the less justifiable the author’s claim.

In sum, the author’s conclusion is notwell-reasoned because the two studies he cites dose not lend strong support toit. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer should consider all thepossibilities that could affect the reading habits of the general population.

sunflower_irisUID: 2720580

In this argument, the author attempt to claim that the respondents in the first study of reading habits of citizens in Leeville give wrong information to the investigators based on a follow-up survey of which the result is that the type of book most frequently borrowed of each of the public libraries was mystery novel rather than literary classics. At first glance, the claim seems to be reasonable. However, the author fails to concern some significant aspects that may seriously undermine the argument.
A threshold problem with the argument is that the author fails to provide the information about the respondents in the first study. It is entirely possible that the number of the respondents is insufficient, and occupy a small percentage of the overall citizens in Leeville. Thus, they cannot be representative of the general population.
Moreover, even if the respondents are statistically significantly and typify the whole citizens, the preference to the literary classics does not necessarily mean that they do not like and checkout the mystery novel. And perhaps, there are more mystery novels than literary classics in library, so they can only borrow one literary classic while two mystery novels are available, but actually they prefer literary classics to the mystery novels. All these cases, if true, would lead to the large number of the mystery novels checked out.（这个论点很好，相对来说，第一点我觉得是没有必要的，攻击第一个study的可信度并不能为你的论点加分，因为作者的结论的主语依旧是the respondents of the first study而不是citizens，所以即使证明他们不具有代表性也无益于论点不是么？如果要攻击first study着眼点应该在respondents是否misrepresent，因为study是双方的，差异的表现不只在于回答者，同时也在于做study的人，那么就可以质疑问卷上的问题是否合理，是否能够准确表达结论，或者做study的人是否准确理解了回答者的意愿等等，这样的话就比攻击回答者的代表性更有力不是么？）

Another fundamental problem that undermines the argument is that the follow-up study only investigates the public libraries to find out people’s favorite books. However, common sense informs me that there are a myriad of ways that people could read books they like, such as going to a private library, or buying them in a bookstore. Without considering these possibilities, the result based on the second study would be unreliable.（是否可以考虑借阅人次？借阅的次数多不代表借阅的人多，可能一些人重复借阅？还有一点就是第二个study虽然调查者是相同的，但是被调查者是不同的，所以反映的情况就不一样，这样就不能归咎于第一个study的被调查者misrepresent，对么）
Last but not the least, the author neglects to indicate the time between the two studies. Even if each conclusion of both the two surveys is correct, we do not know whether they are close enough in time or not. It is quietly possible that people in Leeville prefer the literary classics at the time when the first study was conducted. But after a certain time, they might change their habits and be prone to read the mystery novels. The longer time between these two studies（is） the more possibility that the habits might change and the less justifiable the author’s claim.
In sum, the author’s conclusion is not well-reasoned because the two studies he cites dose not lend strong support to it. To make the argument more convincing, the arguer should consider all the possibilities that could affect the reading habits of the general population.
整体来说逻辑关系是清楚的，语言也较为流畅，能够充分分析问题，B3/5都写的不错。不过需要注意的是不能养成习惯性思维，比如看到study就攻击代表性，要仔细分析argument当中作者是如何得出结论，而结论到底是表达的什么，有针对性的分析，就像我在B1中提出的问题，有针对性才可以让你的攻击有力。另外，以你的观点是先证明第一个调查没有代表性，第二个调查也没有代表性，所以没有可比性，是扩大了说的，是不是可以缩小了说，就因为调查人群不同，所以导致结果不同，这样就不用重复证明调查是否具有代表性，因为结论终究是回到第一个调查人群中，这样是不是更有针对性呢？供你参考。

mseyjUID: 2730706

“需要注意的是不能养成习惯性思维，比如看到study就攻击代表性，要仔细分析argument当中作者是如何得出结论，而结论到底是表达的什么，有针对性的分析”
谢谢 小九！ 受益良多啊！:D