Argument161 永不言弃第七次 by stgzhao 7#

stgzhaoUID: 2583165

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: 497          TIME: 00:36:59          DATE: 2009-2-11 17:49:55

TS  
1.
文中的“respondents”没有明确。是否对象可以代表整个群体？是否只是某一特定年龄段对象？
2.
即使前述成立。去图书馆借阅不一定代表阅读倾向。有可能正是因为他们不喜欢这类才不购买而选择借阅。去图书馆也是特定人群而不具备代表性。与前文“respondents”可能恰好不重合。
3.
就算是说喜欢古典的人去借神秘小说，我们也不能否认喜欢古典的人也可能偶尔去借阅神秘小说作为调剂消遣。

The argument draws a conclusion that the respondents who took part in a study of reading habits had misrepresented their true reading habits. To justify this conclusion, the argument provides a study result conducted by the University of Leeville that most respondent preferred literary classics as reading material. The result contradicts with the result of a follow-up study conducted by the same researchers that the type of book most frequently checked out of the public libraries in Leeville was the mystery novel. I find this conclusion is suspect because of several logical flaws.

To begin with, whether the first study has statistic significance remains further proof. The argument fails to indicate that who are the respondents, nor does it show the number of respondents. There are many circumstances which could make the study pointless. If the respondents are consist only of teenagers of the ages, the study can no longer represent the entire Leeville citizens reading habits. Neither the number is too small will do. Lack of such evidence I will remain doubtful of the result of the study.

Secondly, the follow-up study is also worthy of suspicion. Perhaps people in Leeville who often go to libraries are a certain group of citizens. This indicates that the follow-up study may lacks statistic significance either. It is entirely possible that the respondents in the first study and the citizens who often go to libraries are two separate groups of people. Moreover, the most frequently checked out type of book may not be the type which citizens like most. I believe this situation may exist - it is people's love of literary classic that makes them buy their own books reading home instead of borrowing from libraries. It is a nature for human to have the desire to seize what they like in their own hands. In this circumstance, borrowing mystery novels is just coincident with citizens’ preference of literary classics. In a word, the follow-up study has the possibility to be unable to represent citizens' reading habits.

Finally, even if the first and the follow-up study both counts, we still cannot deny the possibility that people borrowing mystery novels for a change of pace even though they prefer literary classics as reading material. People who love literary classics may feel boring after a long-time reading, then they go to the libraries - where they can make some changes without spending a lot. After all, preference is only a willing, whether to realize it still depends.

In sum, the argument fails to justify the conclusion it draws. The assertion that respondents misrepresented their true reading habits is unwarranted. To under grid the argument the proponent must show me that (1) the respondents in the first study represent Leeville's citizens. (2) People who often go to the libraries accord with the respondents in the first study. (3) They borrow mystery novels because of their like it. Lack of these I cannot accept the conclusion that Leeville's citizens misrepresented their reading habits.