argument161 欢迎拍文互改小组

yaniiUID: 2807225

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: 305
TIME: 00:30:00
DATE: 2010-7-14 15:19:45

On basis of a follow-up study, supposing that citizens prefer mysterious novels to classics, synthesizing an assertive assumption and a falsely classifying of classics, the author claims that responses in the former study conducted by the University of Leeville (UL) is not reliable.

A threshold flaw in the argument involves the classifying of literary classics. The author as well as the investigators fails to consider the factor that some mystery novels also fall into the class of classics. After all, all books composed in the past and enjoy a high reputation can be called classics. The Greek Mysterious Story and Odessay, both are masterpieces in literature as well as mystery novels. In this sense, the result of the latter study is just likely an undercounted number of literary classics checked out.

Even assume that the mystery novels mentioned in the latter study only refers to the latest published ones, the argument is still questionable. Public library is not the only access for people to obtain books, especially its store of literature is comparatively poor. Thus they are likely resort to or private libraries or just purchase them in bookstores, consider its high appreciation and collected value. Besides, it often requires more time and energy to understand a past masterpiece meaning a probable longer checking period of it than those popular works. In each situation, the results of the latter study can hardly indicate the reading habits of the citizens.

The latter study also suffers another insufficient of key information. When are not informed of the duration of the study? If it only last a relatively short time, say several days, there is an alternative of the study result. Maybe some mystery novels on the best-seller list are enjoying so high popularity in Leeville that many people set aside their long habits for classics and turn to them.

The argument seeming logical at first glance, suffers form several flaws as discussed above. Before confuting the reliability of responses in the former study, the investigators had better make clear the boundary between classics and other literature, and make another study about the average reading hours of the citizens on classics versus others during adequate time span.

alickenUID: 2845947

前两个点反驳得很好，学习

yaniiUID: 2807225

我看了解析了，不好意思

hyacinthUID: 2184492

i just tried this argument moment ago... your points were completely different from mine... which makes me realize again how people can think/ reason differently.... the way I see it was more focused on the methodology in the two studies than definition different between literary classics and mystery novel. hehe

---------------
anyway get back to your argument... you have some interesting points but your English could be a real problem.


On basis of a follow-up study, supposing that citizens prefer mysterious novels to classics, synthesizing an assertive assumption and a falsely classifying of classics, the author claims that responses in the former study conducted by the University of Leeville (UL) is not reliable.

A threshold flaw => i've never heard of this expression, what do you mean by threshold flaw? in the argument involves the classifying of literary classics. The author as well as the investigators fails to consider the factor that some mystery novels also fall into the class => category might be a better word here. of classics.  (If you could give some examples, like some books that usually were considered both as classics and mystery. on the top of my head, like Sherlock Holmes? )After all, all books composed in the past and enjoy a high reputation can be called classics. The Greek Mysterious Story and Odessay => i think you misunderstood mystery novel a little bit here...you could check out wikipedia for a loose definition, both are masterpieces in literature as well as mystery novels. In this sense, the result of the latter study is just likely an undercounted number of literary classics checked out.

Even assume that the mystery novels mentioned in the latter study only refers to the latest published ones, the argument is still questionable. (it'd be better to use some transition words here, like because...sometime readers need a little help to recognize the connection between your sentences and they'll really appreciate it if you use words like "because, but, so, therefore etc" to notify them)Public library is not the only access for people to obtain books, especially its store of literature is comparatively poor (i dont think this is true... why is it poor?). Thus they are likely resort to or private libraries or just purchase them in bookstores, consider its high appreciation and collected value => i dont get it...what are you trying to say here?. Besides, it often requires more time and energy to understand a past masterpiece meaning a probable longer checking period of it than those popular works. In each situation, the results of the latter study can hardly indicate the reading habits of the citizens.(why? i m sorry but i just dont see it. maybe you could explain it more and it would increase your word count.)

The latter study also suffers => suffer ??? i'd rather use "miss"another insufficient of key information ??? what are you trying to say?. When => do you mean why? are not informed of the duration of the study (GOOD POINT!!!! )? If it only last a relatively short time, say several days, there is => you seem too certain here, if I were you, i'd use "could be". Because you are not 100% sure there could be an alternative, you are just pointing out there is chance of other possibilities.an alternative of the study result. (^ some transition words might be helpful here )Maybe some mystery novels on the best-seller list are enjoying so high popularity in Leeville that many people set aside their long habits for classics and turn to them  =>i think you are speaking Chinese here...how could a seller list enjoy popularity?  the phrase "turn to " means your look for help from someone or something. Is that what you are trying to say?).

The argument seeming-> seems logical at first glance, suffers (same reason as before. ) form several flaws as discussed above. Before confuting the reliability of responses (=> awkward wording )in the former study, the investigators had better make clear the boundary between classics and other literature ( do you mean mystery novel? Be consistent). , and make ->(conduct might be a better word) another study about the average reading hours of the citizens on classics versus others during adequate time span.


you definitely have to work on transition and try to develop your reasons.  it's not enough to have just good reasons~~

keep it up~~

yaniiUID: 2807225

谢谢斑竹的点评，受益匪浅
现在看看自己好多观点真的只是点了一下，并没有交代清楚。字数也很可怜。
有时会觉得连词过多影响得分，便很吝啬在文中用。没有想到会使文章结构不明。。
看来自己需要改正的还有好多啊！我会努力的

ForkikiUID: 2851928

看了lz的文章，关于classics和mystery的交错的论点确实很出人意料，也很合情合理；同时所举的例子The Greek Mysterious Story and Odessay，个人觉得一下子就显示了深厚的外国文学水平（虽然可能是装的……也被hyacinth称作有点偏，但角度很厉害~）

恩，我刚才也写了一篇，30min， 370words， 希望大家也来帮我看看……

The researchers of the University of Leeville try to convince us with the idea that respondents who said they like literary classics in the research are cheating according to the fact that most frequently checked books of libraries is mystery novel. At the first glance, this argument may be reasonable. Yet, after a careful examination of the reason, it provides little credible support to the conclusion.

First of all, researchers fail to tell the respondents from all the residents in Leeville. There's a great possibility that people involved in the research are of the same education background and of the same taste in literature, for example they may be just students of the University of Leeville. Yet, the residents of Leeville verify from age, education background, purpose of reading and taste in literature.
Obviously, if it's the case, neither of the study results is wrong. And all the respondents are honest in the research.

Another fact the researchers fail to take into consideration is that they only count books checked out from the libraries and ignore books read by people in the library. Since it's common sense that all libraries offer reading rooms, people may be like just reading books of other types in these rooms. Then, we can't easily conclude that the mystery novels are the most popular. In addition, people borrow these mystery book don't mean they will read them, they may just borrow for their children or something like that.

As a final reason weakens the researchers' conclusion, people can get the books they like through many other ways. Libraries are only part of the sources where people can get books. They can buy these literary classics in book-stores, through post or on the Internet. With the development of Internet, they can even download these classics from certain websites; this may reduces the amount of classics borrowed from the libraries. Yet, still keep the fact that literary classics are the most popular.

Argument based on two research results can indeed provide some useful information of people's reading taste. Yet, before the researchers come to the conclusion that respondents are cheating, they need to consider the possible facts above and conduct more precise research to support their reasoning.

yaniiUID: 2807225

The researchers of the University of Leeville try to convince us with （convince sb of sth）the idea that respondents who said they like literary classics in the research are cheating（have lied 个人觉得cheat有些过了） according to the fact that most frequently checked books of libraries is mystery novel. At the first glance, this argument may be reasonable. Yet, after a careful examination of the reason（主语不一致）, it provides little credible support to the conclusion.

First of all, researchers fail to tell the respondents from all the residents in Leeville（respondents和all the residents怎么能区分不开呢，想表达是不是respondents不能很好的代表后者）
. There's a great possibility that people involved in the research are of the same education background and of the same taste in literature, for example they may be just students of the University of Leeville. Yet, the residents of Leeville verify from age, education background, purpose of reading and taste in literature.
Obviously, if it's the case, neither of the study results is wrong（太绝对了，neither of the study may not necessary be wrong）. And all the respondents are honest in the research.(as discussed above，too assertive)


Another fact the researchers fail to take into consideration is that they only count books checked out from the libraries and ignore books read by people in the library. Since it's common sense that all libraries offer reading rooms, people may be like just reading books of other types in these rooms. Then, we can't easily conclude that the mystery novels are the most popular. In addition, people borrow these mystery book don't mean they will read them, they may just borrow for their children or something like that( even they give them to their children or others, the books are read anyhow. This may be a little farfetched).

As a final reason weakens the researchers' conclusion, people can get the books they like through many other ways. Libraries are only part of the sources where people can get books. They can buy these literary classics in book-stores, through post or on the Internet( When you buy books in the Internet, they will post to you.). With the development of Internet, they can even download these classics from certain websites; this may reduces the amount(number) of classics borrowed from the libraries. Yet, still keep the fact that literary classics are the most popular(This may be the fact, we are not sure).

Argument based on two research results can indeed provides some useful information of people's reading taste. Yet, before the researchers come to the conclusion that respondents are cheating, they need to consider the possible facts above and conduct more precise researches to support their reasoning.
（思路清晰，说理到位，只是个别alternative explanations 有些牵强）

6# Forkiki

raysun77UID: 2688235

1# yanii
我看到了和斑竹之间的差距，那不是一点点啊，所以我就在小小的挑一下毛病就好了

1.每个论点都切中要害，但是每个论点反驳都不是很透彻
2. 字数偏少，建议一方面练一下打字速度，另一方面先把argument研究透彻之后再下笔，备考备考，就是要先准备一下
3. 今天看到一篇不错的文章 argument就是要这样写https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=412534&page=1#pid1768150834
   强烈推荐

yaniiUID: 2807225

8# raysun77
推荐了不少好东西啊,谢了！

wdx19861106UID: 2821198

第三个观点比较新。我的提纲是：
1、Classic 怎么定义？
2、也许第一次调研的采样有问题， 比如数量很少，或者仅调查一个阶层。
3、图书馆的情况不明，图书馆也许不允许外借Classic books。

ForkikiUID: 2851928

感谢yanii的点评，看到了自己在遣词用语上的薄弱，以及在构思alternative explanation时的牵强（这个都被看出了…………厉害）；还有，当自己再次检查审阅自己的文章时，发现在论证的逻辑以及他因的寻找上存在比较大的漏洞……很容易就被攻破了；如：

人们可以买古典书籍从而降低这类书的借阅量；

但可以很直接地反问那人们为什么不能买神话书籍，但神话书籍仍然是最受欢迎的呢？

这下就回答不出来了……

恩，我会回去修改并总结的~~

ForkikiUID: 2851928

10# wdx19861106
第三个角度好~~