argument161【today is the day】第九次作业 by revealiing

revealingUID: 2507748

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.

In the analysis, the arguer attempts to conclude that the respondents in the first study conducted by the University of Leeville had misrepresented their reading habits. To justify the argument, the arguer cites two studies conducted by the same researchers. The first study indicated that most respondents said they preferred reading literacy classics, while the second study found that the mystery novels were most frequently checked out in all public libraries in Leeville. As it stands, the argument is well-presented but not thoroughly well-reasoned.

To begin with, it is obvious that the first study quoted in the argument is too vague to be informative. We are told nothing about more details. The study does not indicate how many citizens are there in Leeville, how many people were surveryed and how many of them responded. For example, if there are 50,000 citizens in Leeville but only 2,000 of them were surveyed, it is undoubtful that the samples are too small. Or, if 2,000 people were surveyed but only 500 of them responded, it is apparent the result is doubtful. In fact, in face of such limited evidence, we cannot draw any conclusion at all. As a consequence, we have good reason to suspect if the study is reliable enough.

In addition, even if the study is valid, it is hard to come to the conclusion either. The argument is based on a problematic assumption that all people in Leeville choose to read books in library. The arguer ignores the possibility that most citizens pay for books and perfer read books at home. Or, perhaps they prefer borrow books from each other. Even, maybe they read books on the Internet. And so on. Without considering and ruling out the alternative explanations, the argument cannot convince us the conclusion that the respondents in the first study had misrepresented their reading habits.

Last but not least, the arguer omits several other factors that might weaken the argument. The argument is unwarranted because of a hasty generalization. How many literary classics in these libraries? How many mystery novels? It is entirely possible that the amount of mystery novels is much smaller than that of literacy classics, and most people in Leeville like reading mystery material also; thus the mystery novels are most frequently checked out. Therefore the result cannot reflect the respondents' misrepresentation reading habits in the first study.

To sum up, the argument, while it seems logical at the first glance, has several flaws as mentioned above. To strengthen the argument, the arguer would have to provide us more representative study. To better evaluate the argument, we should need more information about other possible aspects.