ARGUMENT161第一次作业

kiki1991UID: 2777430

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.

In this argument, the arguer draws the conclusion that the first study concerning the reading habits of Leeville citizens fails to be representative and the result is inaccurate and untrustworthy .This assumption is based on an apparent discrepancy between the favourite reading material as literal classics claimed y most respondents in the first study and the type of book most frequently checked out in public libraries in Leeville as mystery novels . At first glance it may reasonable. But after a careful examination of this argument ,however, reveals how groundless the conclusion is .

First of all ,the approach employed in this survey is problematic .The result is consequently opens to question .Consider the second study was conducted in public libraries instead of randomly chosen ,the sampling fails to be representative .The groups going to libraries can not possibly represent the average people in Leevile. Futhermore ,the arguer doesn't give any information about the information about the details of the second study .Maybe the readers in the public libraries prefer to read mystery books in a fixed period of time and the researchers happened to make their survey during that period of time . Therefore ,we can say reading mystery books are just contemporary tendency , which can not equal to their reading habits. What's more, people are most likely to choose books that they are not available a home when in the libraries .In his sense ,the conclusion that reading habits of Leevile citizens has changed seems unwarranted.

Secondly ,the evidence provided in this argument is not sufficient to validate the assumption that the respondents in the first study had mispresented their reading habits.There isn't any information about the time of these two studies. Perhaps the second study was made after a long period of time followed the first .A possilbility is that the reading habits of people in this area have changed to mystery novels over sufficient long period. Moverover ,no specific statistics are offered to solidify the arguer's claim ,instead ,the arguer
just use the word "most" which is too vague to be informative. The claims that literal classics were preferred by "most" respondents and the mystery novels were "most frequently checked" seems to be weakened without any exact statistical figure to support .Thus ,both of the two claims can not serve as convincing reference that make the result of each study representative .Besides ,no detailed information about the backgrounds of the respondents of the two studies is presented ,which makes the conclusion more vulnerable to challenge.

Finally ,this argument commits the fallacy of hasty generalization .A conclusion that the first study is wrong is easily drawn through a single discrepancy .In addition ,other factors ,for example ,the possibility that most people go to libraries are fans of mystery novels .Maybe also existing other factors that leading to the inconsistent results of the two study which play key roles in deciding the accuracy of the conclusion.

To sum up, the argument is not well reasoned .To make the conclusion logically acceptable, the arguer should offer specific figures and more detailed information about the respondents in the first study to solidify the claim that result in the first study failed to be representative rather than second one .

yogurt4UID: 198389

标题带题号。
开头罗嗦，太长，砍砍砍！