【Conquer】作文小组 11。14 A161 by筱豆

beanie加油UID: 2843548

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.



The argument is well-organized, but not well-presented. By demonstrating a controversial results of the research and the follow-up study adopted, the speaker claims that the respondents in the first study misrepresented their reading habits. It seems compelling at first glance, however, it suffers from many logical fallacies.

First, as the study of reading habits of Leeville citizens was conducted, it showed that most respondents preferred literary classics as reading material. But it is not as convincing as it stands. Counter alternatives may include that the number of respondents does not equal to the entire population of Leeville citizens. Perhaps there was only a small amount of people being asked or the respondents did not cover each age of citizens. Therefore, their answers to the reading material were probably incorrent. Other example can be showed by the dishonesty of the people's responses. Chances are that they were disinclined to be open to the kind of reading material they actually preferred most, instead they used literary classic as their answer to show their high level of education. Without excluding these possibilities, the author can not regard the result of study as a persuasive one.


Second, the conclusion the speaker reached exists many fallacies despite of the accuracy of the first study. Probably due to people's love of the literary classics, they bought a collection of books so that they could read at home instead of borrowing them from library. Under this circumstance, the author should not conclude that they has misrepresented their reading habits. Another possibility is that the respondents' answers of favorite literary classics does not mean that they have to borrow the books from library. It is quite likely that they never borrowed the literary classics even though they were very fond of them. Hence, without considering these counter examples, the author could not draw his conclusion that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits.

Third, the author tends to use a follow-up study to prove the first one wrong. But he failed to do that due to the lack of strong support. Many doubtful points include that when did the second research being conducted? Chances are that the follow-up study might be conducted several months later after the first one was researched. Thus, the citizen’s reading habits could probably have changed from the old literary classics to the new mysterious novel. Or considering the type of book most frequently checked out of, it is the chance that it did not represent the reading materials citizens preferred. Perhaps there was a big amount of mysterious books introduced to the library, readers especially the teenagers were very curious and eager to read them. But compared with the literary classics, they considered them more deserved to reading. Hence, not considering these probably alternatives, the speaker could not take advantage of the study as a tool to attack the first study.

Overall, by demonstrating the controversy of the first and follow-up study, the speaker hastily reaches his conclusion that the result shown in the first one was actually incorrect. But he failed to take into account many other counter alternatives. Hence, before any final conclusion about the reading habits of Leeville citizens are drawn, the author should get a comprehensive evaluation about the two studies conducted, which will be beneficial to the persuasion of studies.