ARGUMENT161 【Aero小组】第15次 bybigyan

bigyanUID: 2382427

161In 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.






In this argument, the author comes to the conclusion that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habit. To support this point, the author also cites in the first study the respondents preferred literary classics as reading material, and conversely, that in the second study the mystery is most frequently checked out of each libraries in leeville. However, the conclusion relay on a couple of specious assumptions, which render it unconvincing as it stands.
First and foremost, absent a clear definition of the term “classics” and “mystery”, the author fails to assess to the border contention that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habit. For instance, the popular novel <odyssey> belongs to the mystery as well as classics. Under this circumstance, the reader inclined to mystery might say that they of course preferred literary classics. Given that possible scenario, the validity of the both study is open to untenable.
Even assuming the term of the book, lacking more specific information about the second study, it is impossible to bolster the conclusion. On the one hand, the study fails to tell us the time the study spends. Perhaps during process of the study, the mystery is so popular in leevill that every resident tends to pursue the mystery in libraries. In fact, it is also entirely possible that it is just a incoincide that the most reader check out mystery frequently when the survey proceed in libraries.
On the other hand, the fact that the study occurs in libraries lends no strong support to the conclusion that the fist study had misrepresented their reading habit common sense tells me that the reader in libraries all too often consist of  students, scholar, school faculty , and so forth. So if the respondents in the second study were replete with these groups, it is entirely that the rest ones who did not respond to the report would make a different choice. Thus the result of the study is dubitable.
In sum, the author unfairly convinces me that the first study is meaningless as it speaks. to strengthen it the author should provide more specific information about the length of the study and ingredient of the respondents. To evaluate it the author should consider and rule out other factors that might have effect on the reality of the study.   

beetle1986UID: 2431214

ARGUMENT161 【Aero小组】第15次 bybigyan
161In 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.

In this argument, the author comes to the conclusion that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habit. To support this point, the author also (also?) cites in the first study the respondents preferred literary classics as reading material, and conversely, that in the second study the mystery is most frequently checked out of each libraries in leeville. However, the conclusion relay (relies) on a couple of specious assumptions, which render it unconvincing as it stands.
First and foremost, absent a clear definition of the term “classics” and “mystery”, the author fails to assess to the border contention that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habit. For instance, the popular novel <odyssey> belongs to the mystery as well as classics. Under this circumstance, the reader inclined to mystery might say that they of course preferred literary classics. Given that possible scenario, the validity of the both study is open to untenable.
Even assuming the term of the book (???), lacking more specific information about the second study, it is impossible to bolster the conclusion. On the one hand, the study fails to tell us the time the study spends. Perhaps during process of the study, the mystery is so popular in leevill that every resident tends to pursue the mystery in libraries. In fact, it is also entirely possible that it is just a in coincide that the most reader (readers) check out mystery frequently when the survey proceed in libraries. 第一句话没有看懂。
On the other hand, the fact that the study occurs in libraries lends no strong support to the conclusion that the fist study had misrepresented their reading habit. Common sense tells me that the reader in libraries all too often consist of students, scholar, school faculty, and so forth. So if the respondents in the second study were replete with these groups, it is entirely that the rest ones who did not respond to the report would make a different choice. Thus the result of the study is dubitable.去公共图书馆的真的以学生为主吗？我觉得更重要的攻击点在于图书馆不能反映市民的阅读习惯，一是因为市民有很多方法得到书，二是图书馆的藏书可能有限。
In sum, the author unfairly convinces me that the first study is meaningless as it speaks. To strengthen it the author should provide more specific information about the length of the study and ingredient of the respondents. To evaluate it the author should consider and rule out other factors that might have effect on the reality of the study.   
这个题我也想很久，因为是今年的高频所以选了这个。
我的攻击点为首先质疑这两个study的可靠性。然后指出，就算这两个study是可靠的，第二个调查也不能得出相应的结论。
我觉得不攻一下第一个study的话，作文就只能写两段。像你的第三个攻击段明显应该和第二个合起来。虽然分开显得匀称一些。