【hawk】小组7月28日任务——argument161

谦行天下UID: 2797557

今日作文：

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.

第一次互改：后改前， 第二次互改：前改后
8-5-9-4-11-1-12-7-14-6-3

10未交作业！未请假！

补充作业BS准备：
请与晚10点前帖在BS贴https://bbs.gter.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=1126976&extra

144"It is the artist, not the critic,* who gives society something of lasting value." *a person who evaluates works of art, such as novels, films, music, paintings, etc.

谦行天下UID: 2797557

我老是写不长~~~悲剧~~


In this argument, a result of a study shows that the reading habits of Leeville (Lee) citizens is literary classics, but a follow-up study found the most frequently check out books in the public libraries belong to the mystery novel. The author concludes that the preference of literary classics is misrepresented. In my point of view, the author’s statement suffers from several logical flaws discussed below:

Firstly, although the author mentions the two studies were conducted by the same researchers, but the numbers of days interval between the two studies is unknown. Since the trends of our society changes, people’s reading habit might change. When the first study was done, the mystery novels may still be immature artworks. It is possible that the mystery novel was all the rage several years later when the follow-up research was taken up. Times are changed, and the populace cut their coat according to their cloth. In this case, the result of the first study is reasonable.

Also, we cannot rule out the possibility that the follow-up study misrepresented the people’ reading preferences. Not all citizens lend books from the public libraries. Students and intellectuals usually go to the public libraries, but some working people due to time limit may not usually go to there. So, public libraries are not the only resource for the citizens’ reading. Citizens tend to choose the convenient method to read book and public libraries may not be approach to the majority. Other resources like websites, bookshops, private libraries and so forth need to be investigated, too.

In addition, the author fails to analyze the direct reasons why highly checking out rate of mystery novels happens. Generally speaking, if people love some kinds of book, they like collecting them instead lending them from the library. People may regard the mystery novels as light reading that the checking out rate becomes high. Perhaps, mystery novels are of expensive price, while the classic literature not. Or perhaps, during the time of the study, a large composition contests appeals thousands of people to attend, thus they borrow mystery novels from libraries frequently.

All in all, to substantiate the author’s conclusion, he/she need provide more information to prove the first study and the second study are conducted almost in a time. A single study showing the checking out rate of public libraries may not represent people’s preference.

==============第一次自改=================
谢谢12号！
In this argument, a result of a study shows that the reading habits of Leeville (Lee) citizens is literary classics, but a follow-up study found the most frequently checked out books in the public libraries belong to the mystery novel. Therefore, the author concludes that the preference of literary classics is misrepresented. In my point of view, the author’s statement suffers from several logical flaws discussed below:

Firstly, although the author mentions the two studies were conducted by the same researchers, the numbers of days interval between the two studies is unknown. Since the trends of our society changes, people’s reading habits might change. When the first study was done, the mystery novels may still be immature artworks. It is possible that the mystery novel was all the rage several years later when the follow-up research was taken up. Times are changed, and the populace cut their coat according to their cloth. In this case, the result of the first study is reasonable.

Also, we cannot rule out the possibility that the follow-up study misrepresented the people’ reading preferences. Not all citizens lend books from the public libraries. Students and intellectuals usually go to the public libraries, but some working people due to time limit may not usually go to there. So, public libraries are not the only resource for the citizens’ reading. Citizens tend to choose the convenient method to read book and public libraries may not be approach to the majority. Other resources like websites, bookshops, private libraries and so forth need to be investigated, too.

In addition, the author fails to analyze the direct reasons why highly checking out rate of mystery novels happens. Generally speaking, if people love some kinds of book, they like collecting them instead lending them from the library. People may regard the mystery novels as light reading so that the checking out rate becomes high. On the other side, maybe mystery novels are of expensive price, while the classic literature not. Or perhaps, during the time of the study, a large composition contests
relating to fantasy story appeals thousands of people to attend, thus they borrow mystery novels from libraries frequently.

All in all, the author's conclusion is untenable. To substantiate the author’s conclusion, he/she need provide more information to prove the first study and the second study are conducted almost in a time. A single study showing the checking out rate of public libraries may not represent people’s preference.

谦行天下UID: 2797557

改11号
==========================================改11号================
标点符号错误
单词拼错
我的评价
In this argument ,the auther’s refering totwo different consequences of two studies conducted by the University of Leeville to reach the concliusion that the respondents in the first study had mis represented their reading habits ,is reasonable at first glance ,but it will be found that the auther’s conclusion is absolutely unwarranted through a careful examination.

In the first place ,the augument is based on a hasty generalization .The arguer didn’t pay attention to establish a causal relationship betweenthe type of book most frequently checked out of each of the public libraries with people’s preferredreading material.It is highly possible that people who want to read literary classics always think this kind of books is worthy of keeping so that they would like to buy the books themselves when they are reading. Equal possibility is that literary classics is more important and useful for one that he’d like to finish it and take note just in library ,whlie mystery novel is funny and enjoyable for reading on bed or at table .What’s more , people who said they preferred literary classics as reading material dosen’t mean they are always readers .Maybe they are too busy to go to library ,but the person who prefers mystery novel is often having spare time .
你的观点很赞！但是这些语法错误，估计考官看了也不会给你高分吧！

In the second place ,the study quoted in the argument is not credible .There is no information about how dose the survey conducted ,if 【这里是不是该用wether】the samples of the study is chosen randomly and can represent a diverse  opinion of all Leeville citizens or not, and how many of the people in the survy really respondent[是该用复数吧].Without providing more substantial evidence about the survey ,the auther can’t convince me that respondents in the first study is representative.They may just represent their own attitude and the second study is none of their business.Moreover ,the libraries’ condition in the survey is also ignored .If the library is so small with only a few books that most people wouldn’t like to go there for books ,or just a small amount of  libraries were taken into the study will both undermine the conclusion,let along other possible factors.
我的观点一样，你的观点不错！但是，6分作文也没出现这么多拼写和语法错误吧！每个人时间都很宝贵！如果我在这说多了，请你原谅！

As metioned above ,the auther fails to provide strong evidence to his or her conclusion.His vague imformation means nothing .To strenghen the argument ,some more imformation concrete evidence
have to be produced.
我想自己先把一些简单的错误改掉是对别人的尊重！

=================改12号======================
Wrong
New words to me
Good Expression
My comment and Question

In this article, the president concludes that Leeville citizens prefer mystery novel[用复数或者加the] to literary classics, based on the assumption that the second study is convinced while the first is misrepresented. As far as I can say, this argument suffers from several critical flaws.

To begin with, the mere fact that the mystery novel is the most frequently checked out of[in] the public libraries can’t ensure that it is preferred by most people. First of all, It has many other ways, besides public libraries, to get[access貌似比较高级一点] reading material in the citizens’ daily life, such as private libraries, bookstores, reading-room[复数] in the book-bars and so on. The investigator failed to take all above into account when the survey brought about. Secondly, even if citizens only read what they borrowed from the public libraries, which kinds of books the public libraries own, to some extent, determine the kinds of books to be checked out. If the libraries have plentiful mystery novel[复数] or lesser literary classics, it is not strange the mystery novel came to be the most frequently checked out while literary classics found no borrowers.[很赞的观点!] Last but not the least, the popular of mystery novel[复数] in the survey may be just temporary phenomena, which can’t on behalf of the reading habits formed in a long period.[展开说,不然没说服力!]


Furthermore, the author failed to refute the conclusion of the first survey-the respondents preferred literary classics than mystery novels. The fact that mystery novel checked out most frequently in the public libraries lends little support to the argument that citizens don’t enjoy literary classics most.[重复了上段的观点] And on the other side, the mystery novel can also be literary classics. It is so extensive that all the articles written before our era can be called literary classics. When we refer to many famous mystery novel in ancient times such as “the Greek mythology” and so on, they can also be defined as literary classics. Therefore, the author’s conclusion about they had misrepresented the reading habits of
Leeville citizens is unfounded.



In conclusion, this argument is based on soundless assumptions and hasty conclusions. In order to make it more convincing, the arguer should consummate the process of the study.

才加入小组就要退出呀?

hwslqcUID: 2861597

自改～～～～～～～


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: 520
TIME: 00:40:00
DATE: 2010-7-28 14:55:50
The notion that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits seems to be sound and convincing at first glance. After all, the difference between the choice made by the respondents in the first study and the book checked out most frequently in the second study is obviously. However, close scrutiny of this phenomena reveals that it can not lend to
credible support to the solution made by the arguer. The reasons are stated (as) below.
First of all, the arguer falsely assumes that literary classics and mystery novels are totally different, which will definitely misleading the readers. As we all known, there are hundreds of thousands of books which are both literary classics and mystery novels. The example is not hard to find. For example, The Divine Comedy written by Dante, the greatest writer and poet in the Middle Ages, is both a literary classic lasts thousands of years and a famous mystery novel through the whole world. If the respondents in the first study like to read such kind of book, they did not misrepresent their habit. So if the author can not get the convincing evidence to show the number of the book, which is both literary classic and mystery novels, which checked out of the libraries most frequently, the conclusion will be undermined.


Granted the number of the book that are both literary classic and mystery novel is small and will not disturb the conclusion, which is of course an unwarranted assumption, the conclusion is still doubtable. The second study only search the public libraries in Leeville, and overlook the situation of the public libraries. If the public libraries only preserve few literary classics and a lot of mystery novels, then the kind of book most frequently checked out will have nothing to do with the author's conclusion. Furthermore, as we known the literary book can be read more than one or two times. So people who rent a literary book would need much more time than those who rent mystery novels. Without ruling out all the possibilities I cited above, the arguer's opinion will not be guaranteed.
Even if the type of book most frequently checked out of the public libraries can represent the habit of the people in Leeville, it could not lead to the conclusion either. Actually, the arguer says nothing about these two studies. When do each study happened? How many respondents each study haves? If the time between these two study is too long and the favor of the people in Leeville has changed, then both study is right. If the respondents to the first study is small and can to be[?] the representative of the whole people in Leeville. They may be the subculture in Leeville and represented their reading habits correctly. So unless the arguer can show more details about the two study, the conclusion is groundless.
After pointing out so many flaws in the argument, now we can get the evidence used to support the conclusion can not be relies on. The respondents in the first study may misrepresented their reading habits, but before claiming the conclusion, the arguer should do more convincing research in different ways and more detailed and reliable survey should be taken.

hwslqcUID: 2861597

TOPIC: ARGUMENT161 - In a study of reading habits of Leeville citizensconducted by the University of Leeville, most respondents said they preferredliterary classics as reading material. However, a follow-up study conducted bythe same researchers found that the type of book most frequently checked out ofeach of the public libraries in Leeville was the mystery novel. Therefore, itcan be concluded that the respondents in the first study had misrepresentedtheir reading habits.
WORDS: 467          TIME: 00:53:59         DATE: 2010/7/29 0:25:01
In this argument, the author concludes that by two different study of readinghabits of Leeville citizens conducted by the University of Leeville, mostrespondents were not preferred literary classics as reading material. Tosubstantiate this argument, the author cites the resultof the follow-up study conducted by the same researchers’ found that the typeof book most frequently checked out of the public libraries in Leeville was themystery novel. (我来写一下这句话的结构你看看: the authorcites the result of study (conducted by xxx) found that…..感觉到问题了吗？cite和found两个动词连用了。)Plausible as it may seem, I am afraid that the argument can hardly bearfurther examination since there are several flaws in it.

To begin with, the results of two studies lend supportto the argument. （应该是否定吧。没有提供）These studies both focus on thereading habits of Leeville citizens, while the author fails to justify whetherliterary classics have conflicts with mystery novel. The mystery novels canalso be literary classics. The author undercounted the scope of "literaryclassics". In fact, all book write by writers past and made greatsuccesses in readers can be called "literary classics", there aremany mystery novels such as the "Odyssey"and "Greek Mysterious story" have long been considered as literaryclassics. Moreover, each reader has his/her own concept about "literaryclassics". Therefore, the author's conclusion about they hadmisrepresented their reading habits is unfounded.

Next, the author assumes that citizens just keep books from the publiclibraries in Leeville, while there are many paths to get books. Perhaps not only can Leeville citizens buy readingmaterials from the Amazon.com, but there also may have private libraries opento citizens. Or, perhaps（还是少用重复的词语吧） in public libraries the reserves of literary classics are notabundant for citizens and there are so many mystery novels that it is inpassing to borrow one for a look. In any events, the author cannot straightlyassume that the public libraries are the only availableway for Leeville citizens to get reading materials.

Finally, the result of the follow-up study has scant evidence to support theconclusion, because it might be fashion to read mystery novels in that time. Itis highly possible that only the citizens who preferred mystery novels thatreplied to the second study, while the majority of citizens did like literaryclassics. Equally possible is that the respondents only stand for a tinyproportion of the population of Leeville, and thus is insufficientlyrepresentative of the opinion of the general public. Either scenario, if true, would serve to undermine thecredibility of the author's conclusion.

In sum, the argument is not persuasive as it stands. To better substantiate it,the author has to provide actual reason or reasons for the change of readinghabits and the difference between literary classics in first study and mysterynovel in the follow-up study, and demonstrate that the respondents in the firststudy had misrepresented their reading habits.

错误和我找的基本一样，攻击顺序也差不多。。。。。。
建议在保证正确的基础上，使用一些更加出彩的长难句以完美的表达自己的观点～

wellteaUID: 2265842

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: 519          TIME: 01:49:58          DATE: 2010-07-29 1:51:55

In this argument, the author made an assumption, which is ill founded, that the type of book being most frequently borrowed in the public libraries in Leeville will be the type that Leeville citizens prefer to read. Combined with the conflicting fact that people in the previous investigation said they prefer to read literary classics while library data shows mystery novel was the type of book most frequently lent to Leeville citizens, the author drew the seemingly solid conclusion that the respondents in this study said wrong about their reading habits. But this assumption and thus the conclusion are unconvinced in the following aspects.

To begin with, the author failed to validate the data used in the argument. First, the demographic composition and amount of respondents are unknown. It is possible that this study covered only a small portion of Leeville citizens that can not represent all the people. The age of the respondents may also largely older people that prefer to read literary classics. The work and education can also influence the answer of respondents. Second, the amount of each type of book is also unknown. If the number of mystery novel in the public libraries is much bigger than that of other types of book, the quote of library data will be meaningless. Third, about the following study, the time range of statistic data is not given. If the data only represents a short period of records, it may not be able to serve as evidence which supports the final conclusion.

Back to the ill founded assumption in this argument, no evidence was provided to support that the most frequently borrowed type of book in public libraries will be the one people most like to read. Public libraries are not the only source of reading material. If people really like a book and want to read it again and again, they tend to buy it rather than borrow it from a public library, and this may be the case of literary classics. Mystery novel, on the other hand, is mainly used to kill time or help telling stories to kids at night. People almost never read this kind of book twice and will borrow them rather than buy them to save money. Therefore, without further evidence, this assumption is not appropriate.

Even if the reading materials of Leeville citizens mainly come from public libraries, it does mean people will borrow books more frequently if they love them. Literary classics need readers to read carefully to appreciate the emotions and thoughts of the author, this will inevitably cause a slow cycling of these books. On the contrary, the fast cycling of mystery novels may be the result of that readers lost interest of them quickly.

Finally, if the author wants to make the research report more persuasive, the following improvements should be made. First, provide enough information to prove that the respondents can well represent the whole population of Leeville. Second, exclude other reasons that will cause the high borrowing frequency of mystery novels. Third, provide other evidence, such as book selling data, to support the final conclusion.

wellteaUID: 2265842

占楼 2/2

hythythytUID: 2857045

猛拍，请多多指教，谢了
The statement that the respondents who participated in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits seems to be reasonable at a first glance. After all, the result of the first survey that most people treated literary classics as their preference is going against the fact that mystery novel was the type of book most frequently checked out in all the Leeville public libraries. However, the conclusion that respondents in the first study did not express their true habits may conceal some other causes and therefore contains several logical fallacies.

First of all, the author falls to ennunciate the explicit methor that they utilized for their inspection, which makes the inquiry sample somewhat incredible. How many people they investigated is out of the whole argument, however, this is a consequential factor that we need to gain. If the population in their experiment is not big enough to reflect the entire circumstance, the sample will lose its representativeness and therefore may lead to wrong conclusion. Another important element that we demand to evaluate the sample's rationality is what people they chose for the research. The repondents should be chosen at random, involving different kinds of people. Put another way, if the researchers select some typical people, like just professors in univsities, merely old people above the age of 50, only students at schools and so forth, it will also make sample less representative. We require more details about the whole process in order to make sure that these respondents is eligible to compose a desirable sample.

Second, the argument draws the final conclusion just resting on the fact that the most frquently checked-out book is mystery novel, instead of literary classics, which means automatically assuming that most Leeville citizens read books in the public libraries. However, this might not be the case. In fact, there can be a great variety of ways for reading,like enjoying e-books on the Internet, buying books from bookstores, libraries or Internet, borrowing some from friends or family menbers etc. Just listing statistics of  the public libraries' checked-out book is far from a convincing evident to bolster the conclusion.

Finally, most respondents' statement that they inclined toward literary classics does not accurately predict their behavior. Just as many people say that they have a strong desire to reduce foods containing fats and cholesterol, while continuing eating lunch in MacDonald. So we cannot avert that they does not like to read literary classics for the reason of reading more mystery novel, since people may do somthing they do not really go in for. Perhaps there were a series of new mystery novels published at the same time they did the survey, and people just read them hastily just out of curiosity to catch up the fashion.

To sum up, the contradiction between two survevs' reasults is not qualified to use as a impeccable evidence to support the conclusion. A further research should be taken to present the true situation of reading habbits in Leeville.

hythythytUID: 2857045

占位2

danfredaUID: 2774937

第一次写A，很菜，等待被拍...努力中...

        In this article, the president concludes that Leeville citizens prefer mystery novel to literary classics, based on the assumption that the second study is convinced while the first is misrepresented. As far as I can say, this argument suffers from several critical flaws.

        To begin with, the mere fact that the mystery novel is the most frequently checked out of the public libraries can’t ensure that it is preferred by most people. First of all, It has many other ways, besides public libraries, to get reading material in the citizens’ daily life, such as private libraries, bookstores, reading-room in the book-bars and so on. The investigator failed to take all above into account when the survey brought about. Secondly, even if citizens only read what they borrowed from the public libraries, which kinds of books the public libraries own, to some extent, determine the kinds of books checked out. If the libraries have plentiful mystery novel or lesser literary classics, it is not strange the mystery novel came to be the most frequently checked out while literary classics found no borrowers. Last but not the least, the popular of mystery novel in the survey may be just temporary phenomena, which can’t on behalf of the reading habits formed in a long period.

        Furthermore, the author failed to refute the conclusion of the first survey-the respondents preferred literary classics than mystery novels. The fact that mystery novel checked out most frequently in the public libraries lends little support to the argument that citizens don’t enjoy literary classics most. And on the other side, the mystery novel can also be literary classics. It is so extensive that all the articles written before our era can be called literary classics. When we refer to many famous mystery novel in ancient times such as “the Greek mythology” and so on, they can also be defined as literary classics. Therefore, the author’s conclusion about they had misrepresented the reading habits of
Leeville citizens is unfounded.

        In conclusion, this argument is based on soundless assumptions and hasty conclusions. In order to make it more convincing, the arguer should consummate the process of the study.

danfredaUID: 2774937

改 1 小谦

Wrong
New words to me
Good Expression
My comment and Questions

In this argument, a result of a study shows that the reading habits of Leeville (Lee) citizens is literary classics, but a follow-up study found the most frequently check(ed) out books in the public libraries belong to the mystery novel. (Therefore,)The author concludes that the preference of literary classics is misrepresented. In my point of view, the author’s statement suffers from several logical flaws discussed below:

Firstly, although the author mentions the two studies were conducted by the same researchers, but the numbers of days interval(时间上间隔) between the two studies is unknown. (语法上讲同一句中although和but不能连用) Since the trends of our society changes, people’s reading habits might change. When the first study was done, the mystery novels may still be immature artworks. It is possible that the mystery novel was all the rage(流行，盛行) several years later when the follow-up research was taken up. Times are changed, and the populace(人民) cut their coat according to their cloth. In this case, the result of the first study is reasonable.
本段的主题应是the result of the first study is reasonable.（或作者不能草率的说第一次调查结果不合理），此主题在第一句就应指出，although the author mentions ...已经开始论证了，应为第二句。

Also, we cannot rule out the possibility that the follow-up study misrepresented the people’ reading preferences. Not all citizens lend books from the public libraries. Students and intellectuals(高智力者) usually go to the public libraries, but some working people due to time limit may not usually go to there. So, public libraries are not the only resource for the citizens’ reading. Citizens tend to choose the convenient method to read book and public libraries may not be approach to the majority. Other resources like websites, bookshops, private libraries and so forth(and so on) need to be investigated, too.
读了这段感觉单句长度都适中，建议用点长的复合句，让句子长度有层次。

In addition, the author fails to analyze the direct reasons why highly checking out rate of mystery novels happens. Generally speaking, if people love some kinds of book, they like collecting them instead lending them from the library. People may regard the mystery novels as light reading (so)that the checking out rate becomes high. Perhaps,(On the other side, maybe) mystery novels are of expensive price, while the classic literature not. Or perhaps,(前后两句用一次perhaps较好) during the time of the study, a large composition contests (relating to fantasy story) appeals thousands of people to attend, thus they borrow mystery novels from libraries frequently.(最后这个观点很新颖^_^)

All in all, to substantiate the author’s conclusion, he/she need provide more information to prove the first study and the second study are conducted almost in a time. A single study showing the checking out rate of public libraries may not represent people’s preference.
个人认为结尾应先总结全文的观点：作者结论不成立/不健全...下一句再说he need provide more information...


总体来说还不错，第一次“拍文”，不周到处见谅~加油！^_^

finalleUID: 2812504

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: 467          TIME: 00:53:59          DATE: 2010/7/29 0:25:01
In this argument, the author concludes that by two different study of reading habits of Leeville citizens conducted by the University of Leeville, most respondents were not preferred literary classics as reading material. To substantiate this argument, the author cites the result of the follow-up study conducted by the same reseachers found that the type of book most frequently checked out of the public libraries in Leeville was the mystery novel.Plausible as it may seem, I am afraid that the argument can hardly bear further examination since there are several flaws in it.
To begin with, the results of two studies lend support to the argument. These studies both focus on the reading habits of Leeville citizens, while the author fails to justify whether literary classics have conflicts with mystery novel. The mystery novels can also be literary classics. The author undercounted the scope of "literary classics" . In fact, all book write by writers past and made great successes in readers can be called "literary classics", there are many mystery novels such as the "Odessey" and "Greek Mysterious story" have long been considered as literary classics. Moreover, each reader has his/her own concept about "literary classics". Therefore, the author's conclusion about they had misrepresented their reading habits is unfounded.
Next, the author assumes that citizens just keep books from the public libraries in Leeville, while there are many paths to get books. Perhaps not only can Leeville citizens buy reading materials from the Amazon.com, but there also may have private libraries open to citizens. Or, perhaps in public libraries the reserves of literary classics are not abundant for citizens and there are so many mystery novels that it is in passing to borrow one for a look. In any events, the author cannot straightly assume that the public libraries is the only  available way for Leeville citizens to get reading materials.
Finally, the result of the follow-up study has scant evidence to support the conclusion, because it might be fashion to read mystery novels in that time. It is highly possible that only the citizens who preferred mystery novels that replied to the second study, while the majority of citizens did like literary classics. Equally possible is that the respondents only stand for a tiny proportion of the population of Leeville, and thus is insufficiently representative of the opinion of the general public. Either scenario, if true, would serve to undermine the credibility of the author's conclusion.
In sum, the argument is not persuasive as it stands. To better substantiate it, the author has to provide actual reason or reasons for the change of reading habits and the difference between literary classics in first study and mystery novel in the follow-up study, and demonstrate that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits.

finalleUID: 2812504

改8作业
In this argument, the author made an assumption, which is ill founded, that the type of book being most frequently borrowed in the public libraries in Leeville will be the type that Leeville citizens prefer to read. Combined with the conflicting fact that people in the previous investigation said they prefer前后时态 to read literary classics while library data shows mystery novel was the type of book most frequently lent to Leeville citizens, the author drew the seemingly solid conclusion that the respondents in this study said wrong about their reading habits. But this assumption and thus the conclusion are unconvinced in the following aspects.
感觉这段前后重复使用表达有点多，可以试着用别的词代替

To begin with, the author failed to validate the data used in the argument. First, the demographic composition and amount of respondents are unknown. It is possible that this study covered only a small portion of Leeville citizens that can not represent all the people好像有点多余. The age of the respondents may also largely older people that prefer to read literary classics 这句有点歧义. The work and education can also influence the answer of respondents. Second, the amount of each type of book is also unknown. If the number of mystery novel in the public libraries is much bigger than that of other types of book, the quote of library data will be meaningless. Third, about the following study, the time range of statistic data is not given. If the data only represents a short period of records, it may not be able to serve as evidence which supports the final conclusion.

Back to the ill founded assumption in this argument, no evidence was provided to support that the most frequently borrowed type of book in public libraries will be the one people most like to read. Public libraries are not the only source of reading material. If people really like a book and want to read it again and again, they tend to buy it rather than borrow it from a public library, and this may be the case of literary classics. Mystery novel, on the other hand, is mainly used to kill time or help telling stories to kids at night. People almost never read this kind of book twice and will borrow them rather than buy them to save money. Therefore, without further evidence, this assumption is not appropriate.

Even if the reading materials of Leeville citizens mainly come from public libraries, it does mean people will borrow books more frequently if they love them. Literary classics need readers to read carefully to appreciate the emotions and thoughts of the author, this will inevitably cause a slow cycling of these books. On the contrary, the fast cycling of mystery novels may be the result of that readers lost interest of them quickly.

Finally, if the author wants to make the research report more persuasive, the following improvements should be made. First, provide enough information to prove that the respondents can well represent the whole population of Leeville. Second, exclude other reasons that will cause the high borrowing frequency of mystery novels. Third, provide other evidence, such as book selling data, to support the final conclusion.

看了很多遍 你也写的很好
不是我敷衍 真的找问题好难啊
你论点论据都很充足 句型也运用的很灵活 没有什么模板的痕迹 向你学习！