Definitely, a victory 小组第4次作业 Argument161 By3号echo（huohuo0101）

huohuo0101UID: 2760840

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.
逻辑谬误
后续研究与前面研究相隔的时间期间，读者的阅读偏好有可能改变。
就算没改变，也不能说明图书馆的检索率说明读者的阅读习惯。有可能读者只是检索但并未借阅。
在图书馆借书的人不能代表全部的Leevile的市民


The speaker concludes that Leeville participants in a study of reading habits misrepresented their reading habits by referring to a follow-up study result showing that the type of book most frequently checked out of public libraries in Leeville was the mystery novel instead of literary classics which the participants claimed to prefer in the first study. I find that the conclusion is falsely drawn in several aspects.

To begin with, the speaker assumes that reading habit of Leevile citizens have not changed during the interval between two studies, thus habit of reading literal classic and mystery novel contract with one another . Perhaps, however, a series of mystery novel were published during the interval and big campaign made mystery novel suddenly popular in Leevile. Consequently the citizens turned to mystery novel from literal classic as their regular reading material. If so, participants in first study didn’t misrepresents their reading habit but changed it.

Even assuming that reading habits of Leevile citizens remain the same, the assumption that frequency of books being checked out in libraries represents reading habits is poorly substantiated. First, it’s very likely that mystery novels in libraries are frequently checked out due to their eye-catching covers or conspicuous position in libraries’ web page, and most of the readers would not go further than just checking out.


And also, even if mystery novels checked out in libraries are borrowed away eventually, books borrowed from library only take up part of total volume of one’s daily reading material. Perhaps literal classics bought from book store are the main dishes and the borrowed mystery novels just serve to occasional browse, not to mention some of the regular readers never go to libraries. so investigation in library books is irrelevant to reading habits of library-resisting readers.

To sum up, the speaker made the conclusion regardless of several crucial factors such as time, reading material sources, and individual difference thus make it flawed and unconvincing. To strengthen it up, first the speaker must provide clear evidence that reading habits of Leevile citizen remain the same before the follow-up study. And he/she needs to demonstrate causal link between frequency of books being checked out and reading frequency. More over, the results of investigations on other reading material sources such as book store and internet are also needed ,to prove popular reading material type is actually mystery novel not literal classic as misrepresented by respondents in first study.