Definitely, a victory 小组第5次作业 Argument 161 By9号wdx19861106

wdx19861106UID: 2821198

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: 324
TIME: 00:42:40


The article concludes that the respondents in the first study did not tell the truth. To justify this conclusion the author notes that the results of the two simple studies are different. I find this argument logically unconvincing in several aspects.

First of all, the author doesn't tell the detail of the first study. We don't know whether the researchers are the specific scientists or the temp. And the author does not describe the detail of the respondents, we know that different people have different interesting, and the older men may prefer the classical literature. It is entirely possible that all respondents are older people, and there are just little elders in the city, maybe the city is a new one. Moreover, maybe the young in the city are more than the elders, and the young men like to read mystery novel, so the most frequently checked out of the libraries is the mystery novel. And maybe the temps of the study don't know how to sample the data, and make a mistake.

Furthermore, we don't inform anything about the libraries and second study. We know that to protect some books, some books, especially valuable ones, banned borrow out in some libraries. It is possible that the classical literature
can only read in the libraries, while only the mystery novel can borrow out and take homes. Moreover, maybe the second study only survey a small part of the libraries in the city and this will affect the conclusion. And we know that in the real world the accidental events will happened in special place, time and person.

In sum, the conclusion is not persuasive. To bolster it the author should provide clearer evidence that the sample in the study is suitable with the real situation of the city and the researchers are professional in the aspect. And describe the detail of the libraries and the second study. The logical experiments can give rational conclusion.

kirk1988UID: 2416089

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: 324          TIME: 00:42:40         

The article concludes that the respondents in the first study did not tell the truth. To justify this conclusion the author notes that the results of the two simple studies are different. I find this argument logically unconvincing in several aspects.

First of all, the author doesn't tell the detail of the first study. We don't know whether the researchers are the specific scientists or the temp. And the author does not describe the detail of the respondents, we know that different people have different interesting(interests), and the older men(men 可以去掉) may prefer the classical literature. It is entirely possible that all respondents are older people, and(or) there are just little (fewer)elders in the city, maybe(for) the city is a new one. Moreover, maybe the young in the city are more than the elders, and the young men like to read mystery novel, so the most frequently checked out of the libraries is the mystery novel. And maybe the temps of the study don't know how to sample the data, and (thus) make a mistake.

Furthermore, we don't (be informed)inform anything about the libraries and second study. We know that to protect some books, some books, especially valuable ones,(are) banned borrow(ban doing sth) out in some libraries. It is possible that the classical literature   can only read in the libraries, while only the mystery novel can borrow out and take homes(take home). Moreover, maybe the second study only survey a small part of the libraries in the city and this will affect the conclusion. And we know that in the real world the accidental events will happened in special place, time and person.

In sum, the conclusion is not persuasive. To bolster it the author should provide clearer evidence that the sample in the study is suitable(proper) with the real situation(reality) of the city and the researchers are professional in the aspect(in the aspect 没见过这样的用法。。。). And describe the detail of the libraries and the second study（主语？）. The logical experiments can give rational conclusion.