argument161----欢迎派汶作文修改小组7.14作业

fchenyanUID: 2804020

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: 453
TIME: 00:39:02
DATE: 2010-07-14 15:50:22

The argument discredits the earlier conclusions of a study of reading habits of Leeville citizens, just because of their another study found that the type of books mostly frequently checked out of each of the public libraries was the mystery novel. Here are something fishy in the reason of the argument.

Firstly, it is true that people will go to the public libraries when they want to gather some literary reading material, but statistical result is not enough to reveal people's reading habits. Speaking from my own experiences, I prefer downloading e-books from the internet, which turns out to be a more convenient and cheaper way than checking out from libraries, moreover, most of my classmates are the same to me. With the greatly developed technologies, our ways of reading have been diversified. So there are other ways of acquiring resources of reading other than checking books out of libraries. When you drop by a friend you may find there are a lot of books on his or her shelves, most of which are not borrowed from libraries, may be purchased or given as presents. Without consideration about other ways of getting reading materials, the cited data is not a full disclosure of people's reading habits.

Even assume that people go to libraries to check books out when they want something to read, the frequency of checking out cannot illustrate the reading habits. That's because a book is borrowed not means it is read or even preferred. Most people have the experience that they take a lot of books home with great interest only to find they are clearly not to their tastes, at the same time, they add to the frequency of checked out of such books. When people is in favor of a book he or she would like to share with his or her friends, so one record of checking out may not mean that the book is enjoyed by only one person.

Again, we suppose that what the author is indubitable, the argument provides no evidence to show that people have less interest in literary classics than mystery novel. As an analogue, people whose favorite fruit is apple but he or she may have more strawberry in spring. There is a possibility that the time they carried out the follow-up study is just the season of abundant of mystery novel, so people check more that kind of books out of libraries, but the books that are dearest to their hearts have never been replaced. Without further evidence, we cannot draw a conclusion as the argument gives.

In summary, the argument rely its reason on a study that is not complete and further study is required to support this judgment.

清水风铃_nonoUID: 2809777

The argument discredits the earlier conclusions of a study of reading habits of Leeville citizens, just because of their another study found that the type of books mostly frequently checked out of each of the public libraries was the mystery novel. Here are something fishy in the reason(改为reasoning比较好) of the argument.

Firstly, it is true that (这里可以加一个some,或者说in some occasions,因为本段的观点是图书馆不是唯一途径，尽量在首句里表现“不是唯一”)people will go to the public libraries when they want to gather some literary reading material, but statistical result is not enough to reveal people's reading habits. Speaking from my own experiences, I prefer downloading e-books from the internet, which turns out to be a more convenient and cheaper way than checking out from libraries, moreover, most of my classmates are the same to me. With the greatly developed technologies, our ways of reading have been diversified. So there are other ways of acquiring resources of reading other than checking books out of libraries.(这句前文已经提到类似的，可以不必再次转述) When you drop by a friend you may find there are a lot of books on his or her shelves, most of which are not borrowed from libraries, may be purchased or given as presents. Without consideration about other ways of getting reading materials, the cited data is not a full disclosure of people's reading habits.(本段观点为“喜欢不一定到图书馆去check还有其他的途径，比如上网和从朋友处借)

Even assume that people go to libraries to check books out when they want something to read, the frequency of checking out cannot illustrate the reading habits. That's because a book is borrowed not means it is read or even preferred. Most people have the experience that they take a lot of books home with great interest only to find they are clearly not to their tastes, at the same time, they add to the frequency of checked out of such books. When people is in favor of a book he or she would like to share with his or her friends, so one record of checking out may not mean that the book is enjoyed by only one person.(本段指出“check”了不代表就喜欢)

Again, we(可以省略) suppose that what the author is indubitable, the argument provides no evidence to show that people have less interest in literary classics than mystery novel. As an analogue, people whose favorite fruit is apple but he or she may have more strawberry in spring. There is a possibility that the time they carried out the follow-up study is just the season of abundant of mystery novel, so people check more that kind of books out of libraries, but the books that are dearest to their hearts have never been replaced. Without further evidence, we cannot draw a conclusion as the argument gives.（本段观点“不check不代表不喜欢，有可能一样喜欢”）

In summary, the argument rely its reason on a study that is not complete and further study is required to support this judgment.

总体来说文章结构比较清晰，三段攻击三个逻辑点。
需要注意的是，语言的正式性需要再提高。比如，第二段用自己的例子是可以的，但语言偏生活化了一些，如果能更正式就好了。可以多使用被动语态代替“when you。。。”第4段we suppose可以直接说suppose. 尽量减少使用无意义的人称代词可以降低语言的随意性。

关于arg161的逻辑，我个人的思路如下，仅供参考，欢迎拍砖
Study 1：问卷或采访调查，现象是回应literary classics (LC)的多，推断出（推断1）喜欢LC的多
Study 2：check的数据统计，现象是mystery novel(MN)点击多，推断出（推断2）喜欢MN的多
由于study 1 和 2 针对同一个问题，本应得出相同结论，现在却得出了不同的，作者由此怀疑misrepresented

但是实际上，这两个调查导致不同结果的原因很多，可能是其他方面的研究方法上不全面导致的。比如
Study1可能就有问题，比如都调查了些什么人，样本是否能代表总体（如果是在literary classics阅览室调查的，那么这个结果就不一定具有普遍性，再如果题目中提到的，他们没有说实话，也是一种可能），使用的什么调查手段（如果是问卷调查，问卷的设计上如果有misleading也会导致结果有问题）
Study2可能也有问题，就是作者说的那些方面，作者将check等同于喜欢，可能有两个问题。一是check了不代表喜欢,除了作者提到的原因，还可能是MN藏书总数远大于LC，点击量不代表点击率，或者其他原因。一是喜欢不一定check，除了向朋友借也可以买来看，以及文中提到的上网看。这些也就是check和喜欢的充分必要性讨论。
Study 1 和 2 任何一个出现了问题，都有可能导致两个调查结果不一致，作者直接得出misrepresented的结论是理由不充分的。

PS：本人为零散户，非任一互改小组成员，见此文引起思考，遂评论之，望楼主及板油们发现错误和值得讨论的地方及时讨论，谢谢！

fchenyanUID: 2804020

2# 清水风铃_nono 谢谢你的意见，希望以后你能常常拍拍我的作文。

关于语言的正式性，这个问题也是现在正困扰我的，前一段时间都把精力放在思路和题目分析上了，虽然没有什么进展，但是还是把语言这方面给忽略了。
我现在的做法是看北美范文，效果应该会比较慢。
再次表示感谢。

清水风铃_nonoUID: 2809777

我现在也在困惑语言的问题，觉得一下就拿出精炼的语言并不容易，还是要积累，多见才能多写。
北美范文是不错的主意，虽然慢，但学一句是一句。不能贪多。
我最近也在各处搜集总结，但觉得光总结没用，在作文里用过才是自己的。
同加油。