【hawk】小组7月28日任务——argument161

agnes2010UID: 2794922

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: 416
TIME: 00:44:52
DATE: 2010-7-28 21:24:55

In this argument, the arguer asserts that it is not true that Leeville citizens prefer to read literary classics just because a follow-up study shows that mystery novels are the most popular reading materials in the local public libraries. Yet, careful investigation into this argument will expose several fallacies in it, which makes the argument unconvincing.

First of all, the first study is a research on reading habits aiming at Leeville citizens. Without any scientific and accurate figures to support his or her assertion, the arguer claims that most respondents enjoy reading literary classics. However, as we all know, both the amounts and the condition of research samples and respondents will influence the final results of a study. Perhaps the survey is conducted to all the local citizens while the respondents are from a small part of them, most of who are senior, thus making the results to be classics. Or perhaps the respondents are collected from all the samples while all of them are the old, which will also lead to the present result. Therefore, unless giving all the background information of the study can the result be reliable.

In addition, as a follow-up study, the second research also ignores the importance of the representativeness of the research samples. Compared to the first study, in the second one, the researches limited the research samples to a small scale---readers in the local public libraries or bookstores. Then, how about the condition in private libraries? Or how about people's affection to reading habits when they surf on the internet for reading? Nowadays, as paper-reading is no longer the most popular way, it is insensitive for the arguer to draw statistics from the libraries, which will certainly lose representativeness to a certain extent.

Last but not least, even if the two studies are well guided, just mentioning that the second study are conducted by the same researches, and without any suggestion of the time when the two studies began, the arguer hastily draw a conclusion from them. If the first study is made a decade before the second one, it is reasonable for those respondents to show affection to those classical books, which should not be considered to be misrepresented. Hence, the arguer must show proofs to attest that the two studies have close relationship.

In sum, to substantiate the author's assertion that the first study misrepresented people's reading habits, the arguer should give abundant information and accurate statistics to outline the relationship between the two studies.

agnes2010UID: 2794922

改[09]hwslqc

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

green- 语法错误
blue-好词好句
red-不理解的地方
purple-建议

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【这里没看懂...】 credible support to the solution made by the arguer. The reason【s】 are stated (as) below.

First of all, the arguer divides the books into literary classics and mystery novels, which will definitely misleading the readers【个人观点：我不觉得作者把阅读分成了两个部分呢...只是两个调查结果吧，argu中有提到只有两种类别吗？】. As we all known, there are hundreds of thousands of books which are both literary classics and mystery novels.【看到这里我了解作者的意思了~ 不过还是建议在首句中做修改，否则一上来就给人一种误解...个人建议供参考】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. 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, that checked out of the libraries most frequently, the conclusion will be undermined.【例子很精彩，不过建议把argu忽略的可能性再分析的具体一点】

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 still undermined【建议换一种表述~前面已经出现过了】.

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 claim【claiming】 the conclusion, the arguer should do more convincing research in different ways and more detailed and reliable survey should be taken.

【总体感觉思路比较清晰，每段段首都能承上启下。建议在表述上再明确一点，不要给人产生模棱两可的感觉，最好把可能性都一一列举出来，这样看上去更顺畅些~ 学习你的好词好句！】

sharonyeUID: 2862009

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

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 .

In the second place ,the study quoted in the argument is not credible .There is no information about how dose the survey conducted ,if 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.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.

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.

ltymoonUID: 2685371

In the argument ,the author refers to two researches with seemly contradictroy results and concludes that the interviewed in the first report had misprented. The author comes to the statement by making several fallacies, which will be dicussed as follows.
First, the author doesn't provide any statics or infomation in these two researches,such as the number of people involved in the two researches, respondents' background and their ages. If the number of the research sample is small, it is a terrible mistake to draw a conclusion which depends on the statistical proofs.
Then, the author arbitrarily believes that books  cheked out in the public libraries will present people's reading taste. Maybe more people tend to read books in libraries rather than check them out, or they prefer purchasing favorite books to borrowing them from the libarires, or they just enjoy reading on the computer screen.
Moreover,even if the books checked out can represent their tastes, there is still a mistake in logics in the speaker's argument.The speaker points out most frequently borrowed books are mystery novel and imply that the mystery novel falls into the field of modern literature. However, to my knowledge,mystry literature dates back to long time ago and some outstanding mystery novel belongs to the classical literature.
In a word, to substantiate the speaker's statement, he or she should do more research and turn to the statics for help. Otherwise, the conclusion the speaker makes is arbitrary rather than reasonable.

ltymoonUID: 2685371

占座2

zhangxiaohang1UID: 2705669

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: 337          TIME: 00:40:00          DATE: 2010/7/28 16:36:57

The argument is well-presented, but also includes several aspects that are questionable. By making a comparison of the two studies, the argument for misrepresenting of the respondents of the first study seems logical.
However, the most frequently checked out book sometimes is not equal to the most loving book. In general, some reader may buy and collect the books which are their favorites especially ones worth to be collected. Therefore, we are favor in these literary classics, but not check in the public libraries. Furthermore, as we all know, most people in public doesn't like reading in library. These mystery novels entirely were checked by a few persons who are favor in mystery fictions and reading in library. What's more, the largest user groups of library are students who also reading in their schools' private library. If the author provides a study in schools' library, it makes great contribution to the argument.
Another important thing to consider is the compositions of the respondents. The author provides none data about whether the compositions of their respondents are similar, which makes me doubtful. If the respondents in the first studies are not frequently reading in public library, we have no reason to conclude that their representation is wrong. Since the owner has failed to consider and role out this possibility, the owner’s assertion cannot be taken seriously
Last but not least, how long the interim period is plays an important role in the logical chain. Along with time flying, people’s attitudes and interests in books are changing. Literary classics always been accepted and loved by elders and mystery novels were favored by young. Hence it’s naturally that study in past shows people loves in literary classics and study recently shows people loves in mystery novels.
In sum, the author's argument is unpersuasive. To further bolster the argument the author should provide better evidence, perhaps the compositions of the respondents of the two researches. Or, perhaps, the length of the interim period between two studies is helpful for the argument.
写的比较恶。。。忘贴上了。。

zhangxiaohang1UID: 2705669

改6
题目：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.

不好意思 写的晚了点
In this argument, the author concludes that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits. To espouse this conclusion, author quotes a survey about in the University of Leevile and an investment for each of public libraries. From my perspective, it is far from well reasoned.
First, the survey in the University is unilateral. Because the most respondents in the university are the students, so the conclusion about the reading habits of Leeville citizens is poor. The author false to considers the reading habit of the student as the reading habit of citizen. Student is a part of the citizen, citizen include too many members such as worker, farmer and so on. To enhance the representation of the survey, researchers should conduct more survey in different place where[where是副词不能做主语] has a lot of people just like factory and central park.
观点不错！：）

In addition, the literary classics is hardly to understand and[but?] suit for the educated while mystery novel always is interesting and popular. They are totally unfamiliar [kinds of book去掉比较好，或者说these two kinds of books are totally unfamiliar.]. In the university, students need to read the literary classics to know insight ideas from the great man. At the same time, mystery novel is easy to understand. The attracting scenario makes it acclaimed. From the above statement, we know that the literary classics need more time to read even if the literary classics is borrowed, it will takes a long time to read. So it cannot be most frequently checked out. On the contrary, mysteries novel is easy to read, it will be return as soon as reader finished.
恩，也说到点子上了！

Last but not least important, with the developing of the era, the way of people to reading is various. Book is not the only one, electronic book is a very convenient. Common sense tells us that, the statistics made from the libraries is unwarranted.
这点没扩展?

In a nutshell, I have analyzed so many flaws in the argument. In my opinion, the argument should reason more convincingly[没表达清楚]. So if I were the author I would account the evidence such as the statistics about the reading from the electronic books to make the argument more cogent while the survey from other place also needs to be supported.

sharonyeUID: 2862009

3# 谦行天下
谢谢你，我以前一直不注意语法和拼写，总以为写点东西就行了，现在知道了，以后一定会注意的。

sharonyeUID: 2862009

改4
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: 416
TIME: 00:44:52
DATE: 2010-7-28 21:24:55
In this argument, the arguer asserts that it is not true that Leeville citizens prefer to read literary classics just because a follow-up study shows that mystery novels are the most popular reading materials in the local public libraries（我觉得还是按原文写比较好，因为 mystery novel只是most frequently checked out，并不一定是most popular reading materials，也许别人喜欢在library里面读literary classics）. Yet, careful investigation into this argument will expose several fallacies in it, which makes the argument unconvincing.

First of all, the first study is a research on reading habits aiming at Leeville citizens. Without any scientific and accurate figures to support his or her assertion, the arguer claims that most respondents enjoy reading literary classics(然后呢？应该是unreliable吧，考试可别忘了). However, as we all know, both the amounts and the condition of research samples and respondents will influence the final results of a study. Perhaps the survey is conducted to all the local citizens while the respondents are from a small part of them, most of who are seniors, thus making the results to be classics. Or perhaps the respondents are collected from all the samples while(据说重复的词最好不要太多，建议换成but或是什么更好的) all of them are the old, which will also lead to the present result. Therefore, unless giving all the background information of the study can’t the result be reliable.

In addition, as a follow-up study, the second research also ignores the importance of the representativeness of the research samples. Compared to the first study, in the second one, the researchers limited the research samples to a small scale---readers好像连接符号后面不用复数，我也不是很确定in the local public libraries or bookstores. Then, how about the condition in private libraries? Or how about people's affection to reading habits when they surf on the internet for reading? Nowadays, as paper-reading is no longer the most popular way, it is insensitive for the arguer to draw statistics from the libraries, which will certainly lose representativeness to a certain extent.

Last but not least, even if the two studies are well guided, just mentioning that the second study are conducted by the same researches, and without any suggestion of the time when the two studies began(好), the arguer hastily draw a conclusion from them. If the first study is made a decade（有点不对呀，同样一组人，也差不了这么多天吧，再严谨一些(⊙o⊙)哦） before the second one, it is reasonable for those respondents to show affection to those classical books, which should not be considered to be misrepresented. Hence, the arguer must show proofs to attest that the two studies have close relationship.

In sumary, to substantiate the author's assertion that the first study misrepresented people's reading habits, the arguer should give abundant information and accurate statistics to outline the relationship between the two studies.
我觉得论证条理很清晰，但感觉只是针对了一个方面，就是survey，可以再加一些其他的，使文章跟充实
（嘿嘿，所有意见经供参考，说的不对的包涵一下啦）

PsMaggieUID: 2861847

有人给我改咩。。。

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: 574          TIME: 01:32:17          DATE: 2010/7/30 1:10:20

In this analysis, the arguer claims that the people who said they preferred to read literary output in a study of reading habits had misrepresented their reading habits. To substantiate the conclusion, the arguer points out that the result of a follow-up study from each of the public libraries is that the type of mystery novel is the most frequently to be checked out. However, this argument is unconvincing for several critical flaws.

In the first place, we do not know how many, and what kind of citizens responded to the survey, thus the representativeness of the result is open to doubt. Because there may be a few persons accepted the survey while the amount of the people who checked out books from libraries was the former’s several times. Under this circumstance, it probably turned out to be a result in the follow-up study which is different from the first study. And it is also the same while proved in reverse that is the amount of the first study's objects are several times of the second study's objects. So it can't be representative while the number of informants is unknown.

In the second place, the frequency of a certain type of book being checked out from the public libraries is not a good indication of what kind of reading material do citizens prefer. Firstly, there is no evidence to show that all the respondents borrow books from the libraries. What if the civilians in Leeville don't like the library at all? We can totally say that it is possible for just a few citizens go to library. After all they have many other ways to do the reading such as buy what they want to read from the book store directly, download TXTs from the internet, borrow them from their friends and neighbors and the like. Secondly, we have no idea that what's the number is the stock of books in each category. Public libraries may have plenty of mystery novel and seldom literary classics which may be the reason of why mystery novels are most checked out from each of the public libraries.

In the third place, the author does not analyze to what extent the literary classics and mystery novels mentioned in the argument overlap. As we all know mystery stories may happen in a classical literature. A well-known example is Journey to the West, which was written by Wu Chen-en who lived in Ming dynasty of China. It is a famous classical literature that tells a great deal of mystery stories. So respondents may not understand exactly what style does one book really belong to while it has the two at the same time. Therefore chances are that the result of the research is out of focus when the respondents were in a confusion.

There are still other uncertainties in this argument. For instance, we do not know how long is the interim period between the two studies, many conditions may change after sufficient long time. And also the masses were probably not willing to tell the truth in the first study to know that misrepresent doesn't equal to lie.

Thus we can definitely conclude that the arguer fails to establish a causal relationship between the two surveys. To solidify the argument, the speaker would have to produce more evidence concerning the number of the respondents, the proportion in each category of books in the public libraries and so on.

傲视天下UID: 2843577

to substantiate the author's

ltymoonUID: 2685371

多谢你！ 11# mjg870923

ltymoonUID: 2685371

7 hyt


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 treat literary classics as their preference is going against the fact that mystery novel is the type of book most frequently checked out in all the Leeville public libraries这句话最好别写吧，这就是原文的错误观点 However, the conclusion that respondents in the first study do 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 method that they utilized(语态我就不逐个改了，这种一般是一般现在时） 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蛮别致的 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.有些牵强了。不如说他们没借但是他们喜欢，而不是他们不喜欢mystery而借了

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.