Argument161 说被调查的人不诚实

daidai_4UID: 2194147

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 author's conclusion, that respondents in a former study had not present their reading habits in a sincere way, is based on a comparison between two studies both conducted by the University of Leeville. The respondents in a former study show that literary classics are their most favorable reading material, which is contradicted by--as it seemed to the author--a latter study' result that the mystery novels are most frequently checked out type. However, in the two studies lies no enough evidence as well as illogical reasoning which can not convince me on the conclusion.

A threshold problem is: how long does it last between the two studies. Without any information, perhaps the interim period was long enough for the general population to have changed their tastes in reading habits. Or since the two studies are not conducted during the same time period, it is entirely possible that when they conduct the latter one, there are some bestsellers on mystery novel which might stimulate people's interests for a large part. Lacking any evidence of the interim period, the conclusion is open to doubt.

Despite the preceding problem, the speaker unfairly bases his/her conclusion on the assumption that the book checked out most frequently would amount to the most popular one. Common sense and experience informs me that, for the inherent value of literary classics, people are more inclined to read and appreciate them more than once and more carefully, while mystery novels are often worth reading once and are read more quickly. In other words, it is entirely possible that people who borrow literary classics spend several days finishing a book while as for the mystery novels several books a day. If this is the case, it is apparent, that people favor literary classics more, or at least at the same level as the mystery novels.  

In addition, the arguer bases his/her conclusion on an unfair assumption that who are surveyed in the two studies belong to the same group of people. Common sense and experience informs me that people who are well educated, say, students, faculty in schools etc., are more inclined to borrow books from libraries, in this case, their reading habits can not necessarily represent the general situation. On the other hand, for the group in the latter study, the author offers no evidence about whether the total number of the surveyed large enough to represent the general populace, let alone the portion of the respondents. In this matter, the mere reply of the respondents can make little sense.  For the analysis above, it is probably that who are studied in the two courses of action are belong to two isolated group concerning their reading preference.

All in all, the argument leaves much to be questionable and worth further evaluating. To bolster the conclusion, the arguer should provide more information about the interim period between the two studies and details about the surveyed in the two courses of action to make them more comparable. Further, we need additional information about how long each type of book actually is kept by the borrowers as well as the frequency, to determine the most popular one in public libraries.