argument 161 处女作 只剩三周考试 望大家猛批

hanlu2005UID: 184597

The author concludes that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits.

To support the assertion, the author points out the different results between 2 studies with the same

researchers. However, the argument is questionable.

    First, the mere fact that the most frequently checked out book was the mystery novel is insufficient

evidence to support that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their habits. Without any

evidence to assert a causal relationship between the most frequently book with reading habits. It is

possible that people relish their favorites reading book through other methods: The citizen in Leeville may

buy their favourite classics book for reading and collecting ,but borrow other books from public library for

passing time. Or the personal libraries contains most classical book and the citizen often borrow books

from there. It appears to, reasonable ,the borrow methods are redundant , the citizen may prefer reading

classical literary on the Internet or by issue electornical books . In addition, some mystery books are also

classical literary just like :Ordesy. Unless ,the author can demonstrate that the most frequently checked

out mystery books aren’t conclude any literary classical, the author’s concern with these study is

unformed.


  Second, the study quoted from the argument is also doubly: we find no sign of such procedures for

random sampling in large respondents and no evidence to assert the correctly and objective about the

investigation methods.  Although, the researchers are same ,it is possible that the amounts of respondents

is not large enough which can not show the real reading habits of citizens in Leville .And lacking more

information about the methods of the study which the researchers imply , the results of the study may be

not correctly and can not represent the realist.

  Thirdly, the author provides no evidence to indicate that the authority of the researchers in this study.

Without further information, we have reasons to assume that the study more like a practice in Leeville

college students than a authority survey. Ignore the research level of the researchers ,so the conclusion

also is narrow

  Overall, the argument is not well-reasoned . the author should provides more information about the

methods of the study ,the level of the researchers. And also ,the argument should eliminate the other

possibility that Leeville citizen reading books ,but ensure they are reading on public library.

自己总是混混噩噩的,真恐怕已经晚了.
写了一篇请大家见笑,谢谢指教了

hanlu2005UID: 184597

The author concludes that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits. To support the assertion, the author points out the different results between 2 studies with the same researchers. However, the argument is questionable.

    First, the mere fact that the most frequently checked out book was the mystery novel is insufficient evidence to support that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their habits. Without any evidence to assert a causal relationship between the most frequently book with reading habits. It is possible that people relish their favorites reading book through other methods: The citizen in Leeville may buy their favourite classics book for reading and collecting ,but borrow other books from public library for passing time. Or the personal libraries contains most classical book and the citizen often borrow books from there. It appears to, reasonable ,the borrow methods are redundant , the citizen may prefer reading classical literary on the Internet or by issue electornical books . In addition, some mystery books are also classical literary just like :Ordesy. Unless ,the author can demonstrate that the most frequently checked out mystery books aren’t conclude any literary classical, the author’s concern with these study is unformed.


  Second, the study quoted from the argument is also doubly: we find no sign of such procedures for random sampling in large respondents and no evidence to assert the correctly and objective about the investigation methods.  Although, the researchers are same ,it is possible that the amounts of respondents is not large enough which can not show the real reading habits of citizens in Leville .And lacking more information about the methods of the study which the researchers imply , the results of the study may be not correctly and can not represent the realist.

  Thirdly, the author provides no evidence to indicate that the authority of the researchers in this study. Without further information, we have reasons to assume that the study more like a practice in Leeville college students than a authority survey. Ignore the research level of the researchers ,so the conclusion also is narrow

  So, the argument is not well-reasoned . the author should provides more information about the methods of the study ,the level of the researchers. And also ,the argument should eliminate the other possibility that Leeville citizen reading books ,but ensure they are reading on public library.

hanlu2005UID: 184597

为什么自己发错的帖不能删呢?
好紧张好期盼大家的支持