【1010G精英组】ARGUMENT161 Ambition组回收站

lvruochenUID: 2792806

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.

xiaohaixxxUID: 2317561

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.

45min     05.05.2010
In this article, the author provide us two studies of a same question-Leeville citizens' reading habits, however the result of the second study was not as same as the first one, the author asserted the first study was misrepresented Leeville citizens' reading habits. Obviously, there were several logical flaws in the article.
Firstly, the researcher didn't provide us any evidence to prove that the study was well represented. For example, the study might not identify the inviters' age. As we all know, people of different ages tend to read different kinds of books. So if the researcher just studies the youths or middle aged people the result of the study would not represent the whole Leeville citizens’ habits. What’s more, the respondents might be the group of people who were interested in the research, meanwhile most studied people might not responded at all, if so the result would be also unconvincing.
Secondly, the type of book most frequently checked out of each of the public libraries in Leeville cannot reflect the Leeville citizens' reading habits. In the material we can’t get any information that the libraries in Leeville were just open to the natives. So if people from nearby city can borrow book from Leeville's libraries, the amount of these people can affect the study result. Meanwhile, the second study also ignore the group of people who prefer borrow book from libraries; this group of people may not include youths because youths can get everything from internet instead of go to libraries.
Moreover, the author's conclusion that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented the Leeville citizens' reading habits is unsubstantiated. For there was no evidence can prove that the second study reflected the Leeville citizens' reading habits better and it exists the possibility that the result of the first study well represented the Leeville citizens’ reading habits while the second one was not. If so, the author's assertion was wrong.
In sum, the article fails to convince us the author's assertion. And the conclusion of the author is also lack supported.

whiteoutUID: 2699068

In this argument the author concludes that the study of Leeville citizens which showed they preferred literary classics had misrepresented the citizens’ reading habits. However, there is little evidence lending enough credibility to the author’s argument for the following reasons.

A threshold problem with the argument involves the statistical reliability of the study. The author fails to provide any evidence that the number of respondents is statistically significant or that the respondents were representative of Leeville citizens in general. Lacking information about the randomness and size of the study’s sample, the author cannot convince me that their response could represent the whole citizens’ reading habits.

Even if the study’s respondents are representative of the entire population of Leeville, the argument relies on the assumption that Leeville citizens’ reading habits have never changed. Yet the author ignores the possibility that the first study may be conducted thirteen or more years ago while the follow-up study was just conducted recently. Such a long period has passed that we cannot deny the possibility for Leeville citizens to create other kinds of reading habits. For that matter, the author cannot confidently draw any conclusions about the misrepresentation of the first study.

The argument also assumes that the follow-up study shows the book most frequently checked out in the public libraries was the mystery novel. Although this assumption might generally be sound, it nevertheless might not hold true for Leeville citizens’ reading habits. It is possible that people in Leeville prefer to purchase literary classics in the book stores rather than borrow them or prefer to borrow them more frequently in University libraries than in public libraries. Thus, it would be hasty to infer based merely on this fact that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented the citizens’ reading habits.

Finally, the mere fact of the two studies proves nothing about the misrepresentation of the citizens’ reading habits. To strengthen this argument, the author needs to make both of the studies more convincing. To better assess the argument, I would need to know whether the two studies were conducted in the same time and whether the latter study could precisely reflect the reading habits of Leeville citizens.

annkeUID: 2605122

TOPIC: 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. WORDS: 461 TIME: 00:40:00 DATE: 2010-5-6 13:33:48

1 study is too vague to represent the reading habits of whole Leeville citizens.
2 faultily assume all Leeville citizens borrow books from public libraries.
3 no information about the collection of public library. There are several obvious logic flaws in the argument above.

The evidence provided is too vague to convincingly reason, thus the conclusion that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits is almost superficial.

First of all, the arguer provides a study of reading habits of Leeville citizens which is conducted by the University of Leeville. However, there is no relevant information given to guarantee its reliability, such as how large the sample is, how the sampling process is, and when the study is conducted. Without these significant information, we have sufficient reasons to doubt this study is totally suspicious. Maybe the sample only includes 100 people, however the whole population of Leeville city is nearly 1 million, so even all the 100 respondents like literary classics most, it hardly say Leeville citizens have a habit of reading literary classics. Or, this study is conducted decades age and cannot indicate the present situation. Therefore, the study which act as basis of the argument should be revaluate firstly, Leeville citizens probably do not prefer literary classics as reading material.

Secondly, even though we can optimistically regard the study is reliable, the arguer still faultily assume people who prefer literary classics as well as have a habit of borrowing books from public libraries. It is commonly known that less people maintain borrowing books from public libraries, because there are more accessible ways of reading, such as reading on the Internet, buying books in the bookstores and reading at home. So the type of book most frequently checked out of the public libraries in Leeville was mystery novel cannot prove people misrepresent their reading habits, since it is possible a minority of respondents have a habit of borrowing books in public libraries and those by coincidence love mystery books,however the majority whose favorite is literary classics even do not borrow books.

Moreover, even as the assumption that all Leeville citizens maintain traditional habits of borrowing books in local public libraries, the conclusion is the same doubtful. Because the arguer do not provide any information about the library collection, there are abundant other explanations of mystery novel is the typical book most frequently checked out of public libraries. For example, the number of mystery novel is so small that even a few people's demands will render it checked out. Nevertheless, public libraries always keep sufficient and up-to-date collection of literary classics, so there is little chance checking out. Without ruling out these possibilities, the phenomena of mystery novel scarcely link to the conclusion of the respondents had misrepresented their reading habits. Most businessmen are motivated only by the desire of money．
[罚抄：million million million million million favorite favorite favorite favorite favorite favorite favorite favorite favorite, optimistic, optimistically, optimistically optimistic optimistically. p.s.好几天没做作业了，十分惭愧。。鄙人22号托福。。所以就短暂地转移重心着。。请大家多包涵呀！]

lvruochenUID: 2792806

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.

调查一，受访者说喜欢古典文学（F1）
调查二，受访者在图书馆借迷幻小说书更多（F2）
F2----->人们看更多的小说（D1）
D1+F1----->调查一受访者的感觉错误

主要攻击第1个------>
第2个不大会攻击,带一句

The arguer concluded that people preferred mystery novels as reading material in Leeville by a survey made about the most frequently type of book checked out of each of public libraries. Then compared with the former conduction made by the same researchers, that most respondents said they preferred literary classics as reading material, the latter conduction seems sound to question the mispresentation of the respondents' reading habits. Nevertheless, flaws lie in the argument.

To begin with, the fact that more frequently mystery novels were checked out in libraries can not be used to certify that mystery novels are the most popular books in library. We can not judge how long people spend on some certain kinds of books merely by how frequently they are borrowed. As we all know, reading habits are complex. Mystery novels are borrowed more frequently just may because they are finished quicker. More tellingly we usually borrow various kinds of book from library every time and none of us reads only one kind of books all the time. We judge how much we attracted in a book by effort and time we spent in that book. Putting aside all other kinds of books, to think into the two surveys, we should find out the different worth of literary classics and mystery novels at first. Literary classics bring us with impressive ideas and thoughts, which make those books classic. Lost in the world the authors made vividly, we devote our heart and soul in them, and appreciate them. While, it is not the same when talked about the situation of mystery novels. To some extent, they are written to entertain people as soon as possible. As living is becoming faster nowadays, these novels satisfy the faster needs of entertainment of people. Unlike the classics we read for many times, it is true that some mystery novels do not worth a second reading. We just borrow some new ones. That is why this kind of books is cashed out more frequently. And the research seems less rational to point out the conclusion mentioned.

In addition, library is not the only place we find the books we enjoy. It is common to buy some books really accord with our own taste. Those books take more of our attention. Borrowing books from library is sometimes not the first choice when we need to keep those books permanently. In most cases, we borrow books when we only need them in short terms, just for fun, or even we cannot buy them for some reasons, like unable to afford or find them. We prefer borrowing mystery novels because they are unworthy to be collected except for their entertainment function. We will no longer need them the moment we finish them. On the contrary, literacy classics are books we want to both enjoy them and collect them. We are not so much in favor of borrowing them. So, it is no wonder mystery novels are checked out more frequently. Thus, the second survey is less significant in showing the mispresentation of the respondents' reading habits.

All in all, the second research of popular books based on the frequency of borrowing is inconvincible. What is more, we can not conclude that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits as well. More detailed and conclusive researches remain to be done. There is still way to go.

又写大了, 60 Minutes, 559 Words, 需要加快速度

fufan6711UID: 2788330

In this argument ,the arguers claims that the respondents who preferred literary classics as reading material misrepresented their reading habits. To substantiate the claim, the arguers point out that the type of book most frequently checked out of each of the public libraries in Leeville was the mystery novel. Nevertheless, the argument suffers from several logical flaws after scrutinizing the whole reasoning.

To begin with, the credibility of the study concerning about the reading habits of Leeville citizens conducted by the University of Leeville is open to doubt. The researchers did not provide any details of the study which is of great significance for us to make a right judgement. Lacking information about the number of citizens surveyed and the number of respondents ,the procedure of the study, the time of the study took place, it is impossible to access the validity of the results that the respondents' reading habits can represent the whole citizens'. What if 1000 citizens were studied but only 10 responded ,obviously, the outcome of the study is highly suspect; what if the respondents are a certain group of people who preferred literary classics as their reading material, it is insufficient to draw the conclusion that the Leeviile citizens like reading literary classics; what the study was conducted 20 years ago, while the reading habits can change with time, the conclusion is still unconvincing .As a result ,whether the respondents in the study can represent the whole citizens' reading habit is remain questionable.

Secondarily, albeit we accept that the first study is credible, we still fail to presume that the people who borrowed mystery novel can represent people who like reading literary classicals. Maybe there are not many public libraries in the Leeville city, so the most frequently checked out books of each of the public libraries in Leeville was the mystery novel can not stand for anything. What's more , there are many others ways to access to the readings, such as reading on the Internet, buying books from the bookstores, borrow the books from the school libraries, etc; and the percentage of people who borrow books from public libraries is very small in nowadays, so the situation in the public libraries can not support the arguers' proposition. There is another possibility that the mystery novels are borrowed by a certain group of teenagers who can not represent the whole citizens.

In summary, the conclusion lacks credibility due to the evidence given in the argument dose not lend strong support to what the arguers maintain. In order to make the argument more cogent, the arguers need to provide more details of the two studies.

whiteoutUID: 2699068

To xiaohai 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. 45min     05.05.2010 In this article, the author provide us two studies of a same question（有点不恰当）-Leeville citizens' reading habits, however the result of the second study was not as same as the first one, the author asserted the first study was misrepresented（这里不用被动） Leeville citizens' reading habits. Obviously, there were several logical flaws in the article. Firstly, the researcher didn't provide us any evidence to prove that the study was well represented. For example, the study might not identify the inviters' age. As we all know, people of different ages tend to read different kinds of books. So if the researcher just studies the youths or middle aged people the result of the study would not represent the whole Leeville citizens’ habits. What’s more, the respondents might be the group of people who were interested in the research, meanwhile most studied people might not responded at all, if so the result would be also unconvincing. 举出了年龄差异可能带来结果不可靠，还有一部分人倾向于回应而一部分不倾向，这两点都是我没想到的，学习~ Secondly, the type of book most frequently checked out of each of the public libraries in Leeville cannot reflect the Leeville citizens' reading habits. In the material we can’t get any information that the libraries in Leeville were just open to the natives. So if people from nearby city can borrow book（s） from Leeville's libraries, the amount of these people can affect the study result. Meanwhile, the second study also ignore（s） the group of people who prefer borrow book（s） from libraries; this group of people may not include youths because youths can get everything from internet instead of go to libraries. 不得不说这段的攻击点中的列举的可能性也是我没想到的，很有道理 Moreover, the author's conclusion that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented the Leeville citizens' reading habits is unsubstantiated. For there was no evidence （which） can prove that the second study reflected the Leeville citizens' reading habits better and it（there） exists the possibility that the result of the first study well represented the Leeville citizens’ reading habits while the second one was not. If so, the author's assertion was（would be） wrong. In sum, the article fails to convince us the author's assertion. And the conclusion of the author is also lack supported. 结尾貌似有些仓促~ 我也不太懂结尾到底该怎么写该写多少，只是之前看有前辈说结尾尽量不要给人太简短太仓促的感觉以免ETS认为你没写完导致扣分。 全文攻击点很新，也很有道理。

lvruochenUID: 2792806

TOPIC: 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. WORDS: 461 TIME: 00:40:00 DATE: 2010-5-6 13:33:48

1 study is too vague to represent the reading habits of whole Leeville citizens.
2 faultily assume all Leeville citizens borrow books from public libraries.
3 no information about the collection of public library. There are several obvious logic flaws in the argument above.

The evidence provided is too vague to convincingly reason, thus the conclusion that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits is almost superficial. 开门见山

First of all, the arguer provides a study of reading habits of Leeville citizens which is conducted by the University of Leeville. However, there is no relevant information given to guarantee its reliability, such as how large the sample is, how the sampling process is, and when the study is conducted. Without these significant information, we have sufficient reasons to doubt this study is totally suspicious. Maybe the sample only includes 100 people, however the whole population of Leeville city is nearly 1 million, so even all the 100 respondents like literary classics most（这里没有问题，不过这就是抽样调查法的优点吧，只要有代表性就可以，这里代表性不明，呵呵）, it hardly say Leeville citizens have a habit of reading literary classics. 这个道理好通用，我一直觉得要把这种道理放到后面充字数Or, this study is conducted decades age and cannot indicate the present situation. 什么意思，想说间距长吧Therefore, the study which act错 as basis of the argument should be revaluate终于找到错了 firstly, Leeville citizens probably do not prefer literary classics as reading material.

Secondly, even though we can optimistically regard the study is reliable, the arguer still faultily assume people who prefer literary classics as well as have a habit of borrowing books from public libraries. It is commonly known that less people maintain borrowing books from public libraries, because there are more accessible ways of reading, such as reading on the Internet好, buying books in the bookstores and reading at home3不并列. So the type of book most frequently checked out of the public libraries in Leeville was mystery novel cannot prove people misrepresent their reading habits, since it is possible a minority of respondents have a habit of borrowing books in public libraries and those by coincidence love mystery books,however the majority whose favorite is literary classics even do not borrow books.

Moreover, even as the assumption that all Leeville citizens maintain traditional habits of borrowing books in local public libraries, the conclusion is the same doubtful. Because the arguer do not provide any information about the library collection, there are abundant other explanations of mystery novel is the typical book most frequently checked out of public libraries. For example, the number of mystery novel is so small that even a few people's demands will render it checked out这个没道理，check out是这个意思吗，下同. Nevertheless, public libraries always keep sufficient and up-to-date collection of literary classics, so there is little chance checking out. Without ruling out these possibilities, the phenomena of mystery novel scarcely link to the conclusion of the respondents had misrepresented their reading habits. Most businessmen are motivated only by the desire of money．这句没看懂
[罚抄：million million million million million favorite favorite favorite favorite favorite favorite favorite favorite favorite, optimistic, optimistically, optimistically optimistic optimistically. p.s.好几天没做作业了，十分惭愧。。鄙人22号托福。。所以就短暂地转移重心着。。请大家多包涵呀！]

annkeUID: 2605122

to soonyu~~

In this passage, the author cites two studies. One of them showed[建议统一时态，否则后面的时态转换会引起很多问题] that respondents preferred to read literary classics, however, the other study indicated that the type of book most frequently checked out of[from] libraries was [the去掉] mystery novel. [As the result of] the two seemed conflicting [result of 两个result什么意思？]the two studies, the author concludes that the respondents in the first study told lies. Nevertheless, after [having done deep analysis][having deeply analyzed 更简洁] the results of studies, we can easily find that the author’s asserting[assertion] is unsubstantiated and people who participated in the first study were more likely to have told the truth.[只有总结观点，没有表态，这会让人觉得你是赞成author的。建议直接表态]
First[ly，adj不能单独作成分，除了文学修饰那种], the result of the first study could not represent [the situation about去掉简洁，chignish思维] the reading habits of residents in Leeville. The author did not give us adequate information about the participants including ages, sexes[? 这里都不用复数，因为你想说的是年龄呀，性别呀，而不是年龄些啊，性别们啊~ 是吧^_^], and social positions[status 固定搭配]. Perhaps the respondents in this study were at similar situation or age so that most of them had the same reading habit. Therefore, it was possible that people most of whom[?已经另起一句了] responded the first study were really like to read literary classics.[这一句perhaps假设的用意何在？] Moreover, there is not adequate date[? Data?] about the number of respondents in the study. If the number of participants of the first study was too small, the study could not give us any meaningful conclusion.[我觉得最后一句样本数量，其实十分关键，但是攻击不透啊。]
Second[ly], even if the result of the first study actually represented the reading habits of people, who live[这里又不用过去式] in Leeville, there is not enough evidence from the follow-up study to support the conclusion that residents of Leeville were preferred to read mystery novel.[我猜，你在写的时候很纠结时态问题~~] The kind of book checked out of public libraries could not be [seemed as the sign of][redundant] reading habits of residents. It is possible that literary classics were not available to be lending[borrowed] in public libraries of Leeville or the number of mystery novels was much larger than others’[?如果神秘小说更多的话，同样的借阅需求应该很难被借空，反之，你这个观点恰恰支持了很多人愿意读神秘小说，甚至大大超过读古典的。]. Moreover, there is no evidence about whether most of residents of Leeville would like to read at public libraries so that what kinds of books were most frequently checked out from public libraries could not indicate the reading habits of residents. Without ruling out these possibilities, we cannot believe that residents of Leeville would like to read mystery novels instead of other kinds of books.[条理不清楚。建议写文章之前一定要把逻辑线画出来！！让自己有十分清晰的思路。]
In summary, the assumption of the author that these respondents of the first study had misrepresented their reading habits is unjustifiable. We cannot build obvious relevance between the two results. Without give[ing] adequate evidence to substantiate the assertion, we cannot be persuaded to accept the conclusion.
[tips：加强语法，统一时态，梳理思路，注意固定搭配~ argument 相对issue 简单好多的~~ 加油呀！]

xiaohaixxxUID: 2317561

9# lvruochen





1 study is too vague to represent the reading habits of whole Leeville citizens.
2 faultily assume all Leeville citizens borrow books from public libraries.
3 no information about the collection of public library. There are several obvious logic flaws in the argument above.

The evidence provided is too vague to convincingly reason(不知道这句话对不对), thus the conclusion that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits is almost superficial.

First of all, the arguer provides a study of reading habits of Leeville citizens which is conducted by the University of Leeville. However, there is no relevant information given to guarantee its reliability, such as how large the sample is, how the sampling process is, and when the study is conducted. Without these significant information, we have sufficient reasons to doubt this study is totally suspicious. （展开的很好）Maybe the sample only includes 100 people, however the whole population of Leeville city is nearly 1 million, so even all the 100 respondents like literary classics most, it hardly say Leeville citizens have a habit of reading literary classics. Or, this study is conducted decades age and cannot indicate the present situation. Therefore, the study which acts
as basis of the argument should be revaluate firstly, Leeville citizens probably do not prefer literary classics as reading material. （这句话和前面论述似乎连接不上）

Secondly, even though we can optimistically regard the study is reliable(这里的study 是第二个study 吧，和前面歧义了), the arguer still faultily assume people who prefer literary classics as well as have a habit of borrowing books from public libraries. It is commonly known that less people maintain borrowing books from public libraries, because there are more accessible ways of reading, such as reading on the Internet, buying books in the bookstores and reading at home. （展开的很好） So the type of book most frequently checked out of the public libraries in Leeville was mystery novel cannot prove people misrepresent their reading habits, since it is possible a minority of respondents have a habit of borrowing books in public libraries and those by coincidence love mystery books, however the majority whose favorite is literary classics even do not borrow books.

Moreover, even as the assumption that all Leeville citizens maintain traditional habits of borrowing books in local public libraries, the conclusion is the same（also） doubtful. Because the arguer do not provide any information about the library collection, there are abundant other explanations of mystery novel is the typical book most frequently checked out of public libraries. For example, the number of mystery novel is so small that even a few people's demands will render it checked out. Nevertheless, public libraries always keep sufficient and up-to-date collection of literary classics, so there is little chance checking out. Without ruling out these possibilities, the phenomena of mystery novel scarcely link to the conclusion of the respondents had misrepresented their reading habits. Most businessmen are motivated only by the desire of money．
（怎么没有结尾呢？）

xiaohaixxxUID: 2317561

7# fufan6711

In this argument ,the arguers claims that the respondents who preferred literary classics as reading material misrepresented their reading habits. To substantiate the claim, the arguers point out that the type of book most frequently checked out of each of the public libraries in Leeville was the mystery novel.（这个地方概括的和原文意思有点不符） Nevertheless, the argument suffers from several logical flaws after scrutinizing the whole reasoning.
To begin with, the credibility of the study concerning about the reading habits of Leeville citizens conducted by the University of Leeville is open to doubt. The researchers did not provide any details of the study which is of great significance for us to make a right judgment. Lacking information about the number of citizens surveyed and the number of respondents ,the procedure of the study, the time of the study took place, it is impossible to access the validity of the results that the respondents' reading habits can represent the whole citizens'. What if 1000 citizens were studied but only 10 responded ,obviously, the outcome of the study is highly suspect; what if the respondents are a certain group of people who preferred literary classics as their reading material, it is insufficient to draw the conclusion that the Leeviile citizens like reading literary classics; what（不知道这个what啥意思because of ?） the study was conducted 20 years ago, while the reading habits can change with time, the conclusion is still unconvincing .As a result ,whether the respondents in the study can represent the whole citizens' reading habit is remain questionable.（论证的很充分啊）

Secondarily, albeit we accept that the first study is credible, we still fail to presume that the people who borrowed mystery novel can represent people who like reading literary classicals. Maybe there are not many public libraries in the Leeville city, so the most frequently checked out books of each of the public libraries in Leeville was the mystery novel can not stand for anything. What's more , there are many others ways to access to the readings, such as reading on the Internet, buying books from the bookstores, borrow the books from the school libraries, etc; and the percentage of people who borrow books from public libraries is very small （small 不好
最好用limited）in nowadays, so the situation in the public libraries cannot（和在一起） support the arguers' proposition. There is another possibility that the mystery novels are borrowed by a certain group of teenagers who can not represent the whole citizens.
In summary, the conclusion lacks credibility due to the evidence given in the argument dose not lend strong support to what the arguers maintain.


你写的水平很高  我的水平很多地方不敢下手啊~~~