argument161 求拍必回~~~谢谢!!!

littmagicirlUID：2259433

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: 444          TIME: 0:38:37          DATE: 2007-3-18

In this argument the arguer asserts that the respondents who were surveyed about reading habits by University of Leeville had misrepresented their reading habits in the first study. The mere evidence the argument depended on are two studies. The argument seems to, at first glance, be warranted. However, a closer scrutiny indicates there are several critical fallacies in the argument.

In the first place, the arguer fails to provide any information about the time when the two studies conducted. Since individuals' interests, attitudes and habits may be altered from time to time, without taking time element into consideration, the survey may be invalidity owing to the long time. It is entirely possible that the first study is conducted ten years before the second and during this period of time individuals' return their preferences from literary classics to mystery novel. If so, although the survey is reliable, it is unfairly to prove the former respondents telling a lie. Without taking into account this possibility, the arguer cannot confidently draw any conclusion based on it.

In the second place, the arguer ignores to point out the identities of the respondents in the two studies. Perhaps the researchers investigate different groups of readers whose reading habits are fairly different. The former prefer to literary classics while the later would like to choose mystery novel as their favorite reading material. Moreover, It is may be for the reason that respondents in the first study are professors who engage in classical culture and at the same time the respondents later in the second study might be the writers whose works are involved in mystery stories. If this is the case, the different results are not surprising. In short, in the absence of evidence what are the respondents, the argument is unconvincing.

Finally, even if both the descriptions mentioned above are substantiated, which is, of course, an unwarranted assumption, there is no evidence that the respondents in the first study are lying-tellers. Due to the fact that individuals can read books not only in libraries but also at home or other places, it is maybe reading literary classics at home that leads to the result that people borrow fewer literary books. Moreover, it is possible that individuals prefer literary books to mystery novel and as a result they buy literary classics while borrow mystery works from libraries. Taking this possibility into consideration, the argument should be substantiated more seriously.

In sum, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To strengthen the argument the arguer should make it clear that people's reading habits do not alter for the time element. To better evaluate the argument I need more information about the identities of the respondents.

HypnosUID：172442

反驳理由：调查事件选取不对，调查人不够诚实，调查人物不能代表整体
感觉比较表面，甚至一段话就可以说清楚这些
个人觉得： 借书次数多——〉借书习惯，这个assumption不合理
                2次不同的调查——>否定前一个调查的正确性， 理应有另一些调查来证明到底哪个正确
                调查方式：1问学生感受 2借书种类  没有证据说哪个比较客观

https://bbs.gter.net/thread-630484-1-1.html

bolai808UID：2206779

In this argument the arguer asserts that the respondents who were surveyed about reading habits by University of Leeville had misrepresented their reading habits in the first study. The mere evidence the argument depended on are two studies. The argument seems to, at first glance, be warranted. However, a closer scrutiny indicates there are several critical fallacies in the argument.(言简意赅，不错)


In the first place, the arguer fails to provide any information about the time when the two studies conducted. Since individuals' interests, attitudes and habits may be altered from time to time, without taking time element into consideration, the survey may be invalidity（用形容词invalid） owing to the long time(这里有些不妥，跟前面的since从句有句意的重复；另外这样说也很武断，应该说可能两次调查相隔甚远). It is entirely possible that the first study is conducted ten years before the second and during this period of time individuals' return their preferences from literary classics to mystery novel. (这里可以更加的深入具体一些，比如举例说：亚马逊的bestseller每年甚至每周的最卖座的书题材都不慎一样，也许是建康类的，文学类的，科普类的～～～)If so, although the survey is reliable(用reliable有承认作者结论正确的嫌疑；用真实truthful比较合适吧), it is unfairly to prove the former respondents telling a lie(prove后面应该跟从句). Without taking into account this possibility, the arguer cannot confidently draw any conclusion based on it.(本段整体结构完整，但是论证不是很有说服力，更具体些会更好)

In the second place, the arguer ignores to point out the identities of the respondents in the two studies. Perhaps the researchers investigate different groups of readers whose reading habits are fairly different. The former prefer to literary classics while the later would like to choose mystery novel as their favorite reading material. Moreover, It is may be for the reason that respondents in the first study are professors who engage in classical culture and at the same time the respondents(第二次调查的图书馆的最长借的是那类书，与第一次调查的方式不同；另外，L调查的是各个公共图书馆，个人感觉这个假设－借书人全部是神话小说作家－不是很合理) later in the second study might be the writers whose works are involved in mystery stories. If this is the case, the different results are not surprising. In short, in the absence of evidence what are the respondents, the argument is unconvincing.

Finally, even if both the descriptions(用assumption更切题) mentioned above are substantiated, which is, of course, an unwarranted assumption(删去), there is no evidence that the respondents in the first study are lying-tellers. Due to the fact that individuals can read books not only in libraries but also at home or other places, it is maybe reading literary classics at home that leads to the result that people borrow fewer literary books. Moreover, it is possible that individuals prefer literary books to mystery novel and as a result they buy literary classics while borrow mystery works from libraries. Taking this possibility into consideration, the argument should be substantiated more seriously.


In sum, the argument is unpersuasive as it stands. To strengthen the argument the arguer should make it clear that people's reading habits(habit是长期形成的，比较稳定，改为：兴趣or 爱好比较好) do not alter for(改为in terms of ) the time element. To better evaluate the argument I need more information about the identities of the respondents.

整体结构没有问题，但是论证不够深入，
建议看看前几天iq28的大作，再论论证的充实性，(我也在努力学习之:) )
另外思路可以更加的开阔些：
比如：有一个很好的逻辑漏洞：如何定义literary classics和mystery novel，譬如：古希腊古罗马神话都是literary classics；
楼主加油哦~~

andyljhUID：2121560

littmagicirlUID：2259433

非常感谢:)