argument161 today is the day 第九次作业by tingtingjennty

tingtingjennyUID: 2431377

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.

The author of this memo claim that respondents in the reading habit survey conducted by University of Leeville had misrepresented the reading habits of local people in the first study. To assists this conclusion, the author cites the second survey reflect most frequently checked out books in libraries was mystery novel which is not in consistence with the results of first survey. However, after carefully evaluation, this conclusion suffered from several logical flows that render it inconvincible.

  To begin with, the survey provide by University of Leeville is not well sustained by author to prove it’s effectiveness. The problem relevant to the follow up survey is that researchers only calculated data on local public libraries in Leeville, and conclude that populaces are more interested in reading mystery novels. However, it is entirely possible that most populaces in Leeville prefer more to buy books in book stores, or prefer more to surf on internet to read electronic books, and seldom do populace reading books that borrowed form public libraries. Or possibly the public libraries stores books mostly mystery novels that borrowers could only choose from them. Any of the scenarios would render the unsustainable of author's conclusion.

  Secondly, the other problem relevant to the follow-up study of this survey is the probable difference caused by time distance. For the author might ignore the time distance of the two survey would cause changes in reading habits. Perhaps the follow-up study of the survey were conducted on a time very long after the first one, and citizens in Leeville had changed their reading habits during the time period between the two survey, if this is the condition, to accuse the imprecise of first survey is unwarranted.

  Finally, even assume that the second survey were represent citizens real opinion about the reading habits, it is possible that the survey investigated populations among Leeville citizens were far away form enough to represent an effective population sample, or the sample distribution in the overall areas were not keep in balance, nor could author proved data to prove the respondents are representative of the overall populations opinions in Leeville city, perhaps the respondents of this survey were too less even though the survey populations are large enough. And therefore, the respondents provide their actual reading habits, yet the answers are not in representative at all and inevitably inconsistent with the results of following up study. Without provide enough evidence to eliminate these possibilities, the author’s claim were injustice.

  In conclusion, the author’s conclusion of the imprecise of the first study is not well substantiated, to render a more efficient conclusion, the author have to prove that books lent out in city libraries are representative of over all reading materials by citizens, and the two study are not affected by reasons relevant to time distance, also, the participants of the survey are in themselves accurate to prove a effective survey.