2月21征战aw 寻G友互改~ 刚刚诞生第六篇 argu 161 求狂拍

raisebenUID: 2867978

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: 498
TIME: 01:14:00
DATE: 2011/2/10 11:32:39


The argument appears to be convincing at the first glance. The writer asserts that the respondents in the first study, which is conducted about reading habits of Leeville citizens by the University of Leeville, had misrepresented their reading habits. The conclusion results from two surveys. The respondents in the first survey said they preferred literary classics as reading material, while in the follow-up second survey, the same researchers found that the type of book most frequently checked out of each of the public libraries in Leeeville was the mystery novel. Several logical flaws, however, make it unstable as it stands.

To begin with, this argument does not give an explanation for the possibilities that the first survey samples themselves are flawed. There is no information given about how many people are surveyed, the demographics, or the specific location involved. Statistically speaking, it is more likely that the respondents in the first study are most of the students from colleges or universities of literature, who are most apt to give a response for the survey because of being talkative and full of vitality. Perhaps, the number of respondents is considerable, while the proportion of them in the whole citizens is pretty low. Therefore, without finding out the relationship between those first surveyed and the whole citizens, it is not possible to come to such a conclusion about the accuracy of the fist group's statements. The similar reasoning can be applied to the second one.

In addition, even I grant the representatives of the two surveys, the writer does not give the details about the two separate studies how long the two studies are done apart. Maybe many conditions will change after the large duration of time. To illustrate, when first survey was being conducted, a book of literary classics, written by a famous writer, lightens the people's passions for literary classic, while after a long time when the second one was being conducted, there was an mysterious movie which was more attractive to residents, and during that time, people show more interests in reading mystery novel. Without a basis on which to compare the two surveys, the true comparability in their breadth, scope and expertise is unclear.

Last but not least, the hidden assumption that residents would borrow books from public libraries for their reading materials is not proven according to the second survey. In fact, the data from the libraries cannot well reflect the reading habits of the citizens. People would have more tendencies to buy the books they really like or read the book they love on the internet. There must be more comprehensive studies to be made on the issues.

In short, the evidence provided by the author is too vague to be either well-argued or revealing. The author fails to any casual relationships between the surveys and the conclusion that the first group has misrepresented their reading habits. To well support his indication, the arguer needs to remove the possibilities through more detailed data.